
class. 



Book_WV_k_ 



^'': 



y 



AMERICAN ANCESTORS 



OF THE CHILDREN OF 



JOSEPH AND OANIELLA WHEELER 



OF WHOM WE HAVE RECORDS, AND SOME ACCOUNT OF 
ENGLISH HOG AND NEWDIGATE ANCESTORS 

5 .r%- 



EARLIEST ANCESTORS MENTIONED 

Adams American Ancestor— Ebenezer Adams, b. about 1711 

Cocke American Ancestor— Richard Cocke, b. 1600 

De Hoo English Ancestor— John off Hoo, b. 1400 

Dyer Ancestor — Thomas Dyer, b. 1619 

Early American Ancestor — Thomas Early, b. about 1665 

Edloe American Ancestor— Matthew Edloe, b. about 1620 

Fuller Ancestor — John Fuller, b. 1620 

Hull Ancestor— Richard Hull, b. 1599 

Jackson Ancestor— Christopher Jackson, b. 1560 

Johnson Ancestor — Peter Johnson, b. 1608 

Jones Ancestor— Harrison Jones, b. 1757 

Newdigate American Ancestor— John Newgate, b. 1580 

Newdigate English Ancestor— William Newgate, b. 1485 

Nichols Ancestor— Francis Nichols, b. 1595 

RiGGS Ancestor— Edward Riggs, b. 1585 

Smith Ancestor— Nicholas Smith, b. 1631 

Smith (Va.) Ancestor— Nicholas Smith, b. about 1670 

Wheeler Ancestor— Moses Wheeler, b. 1598 

WoosTEK Ancestor— Edward Wooster, b. 1622 

The evidence presented by genealogists regarding families which they claim are ancestors 
of Thomas Early, John off Hoo and W illiam Newdigate, being only circumstantial, is elimin- 
ated from our genealogical line, and is given only to aid in further research. 

Early Irish Ancestor— Carbri Lifichar, b 225 
De Hoo English Ancestor— Sir Robert de Hoo, d. 1000 



Compiled by Joseph and Daniella Wheeler 
Wheeler, Ala. 

The Family City Address: Waldokf-Astokia, N. Y. 



To assist the compiler in so far as possible to complete this record, information 

regarding any connections of the families herein mentioned 

will be gratefully received. 



WHKL. GEN.— 1. 



kJ 



^ 



\ 



J 






V 



SYNOPSIS AND INDEX 

OF THE 

GENEALOGY OF EACH OF THE LINES OF WHEELER ANCESTORS 

COMMENCING I400 



When women art in line 0/ succession, the last name given is the surname 
of her husband, and the name preceding is that of her father. Figures after 
names give date of birth. 



Pages 7-10 

I.Moses Wheklf.r 15 Jan., 1598 

2. Moses Wheeler 5 July, 1651 

3. Samuel Wheeler ...27 Feb., 1081 

4. James Wheei.er July. 1716 

5. Joseph Wheeler 2 May, 1748 

6. Joseph Wheeler 9 Aug:., 1787 

7. Joseph Wheeler ...id Sept., 1836 
8. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 22-24 

I.John off Hoo 1400 

2.J0H.N AT Hoo 1462 

3.GUALTHER HooE 1498 

4.J0ANE HooE Newgate 1540 

5-JoHN Newdigate 1580 

6.ELIZAHETH Newdigate Jack- 
son 1617 

7. Lydia Jackson Fuller 1656 

S.Joseph Fuller July. 1685 

9. Abraham Fuller, ..23 Mar.. 1720 
io.Sarah Fuller Hull. 27 Apr., 1759 
ii.JuLL\ HuLLWuEELER.ioMar., 1799 

12. Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

13. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 10-13 

I.Richard Hull 1599 

2. John Hull 1640 

3. Joseph Hull i6Feb., 1668 

4. Joseph Hull 1694 

5. Joseph Hull 18 Feb.. 1728 



6. William Hull 24 June, 1753 

7. Julia Hull Wheeler. ID Mar., 1799 

8. Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

9. Joseph Wheeler... 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 24-26 

I. William Newgate --1485 

2.R0HERT Newgate 1512 

3. Phillip Newgate 1552 

4. John Newgate 1580 

5. Elizabeth Newdigate Jack- 
son 1617 

6. Lydia Jackson Fuller 1656 

7. Joseph Fuller July. 1685 

8. Abraham Fuller... 23 Mar., 1720 

g.SAR.vH Fuller Hull. 27 Apr.. 1759 

10. Julia Hull Wheeler. 10 Mar.. 1799 

1 1. Joseph Wheeler . ..10 Sept . 1836 

12. Joseph Wheeler.. .23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 13-15 

I .John Fuller 1620 

2. Joseph Fuller .1652 

3. Joseph Fuller 2 July, 16S5 

4.Abr.\ham Fuller. ..23 Mar., 1720 
5.Sar.\u Fuller Hull. 27 Apr.. 1759 

6. Julia Hull Wheeler 

10 Mar., 1799 
7. Joseph Wheeler.. .10 Sept.. 1836 
8. Joseph Wheeler. ..23 Mar.. 1S72 



p 



SYNOPSIS AND INDEX {Continued). 



in 



Page 16 

I.Thomas Dyer 1615 

2. Joseph Dykr 1653 

3. Joseph Dver.. 19 Jan., 1686 

4. Sarah Dyer Fuller. 20 Mar., 1727 
5. Sarah Fuller HuLL-27 Apr., 1759 

6. Julia Hull Wheeler 

10 Mar., 1799 

7. Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1S36 

S.Joseph Wheeler — 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 17-19 

I.Edward Riggs 1585 

2 Ed\v.\rd Riggs 1605 

3 -Samuel Riggs. 1641 

4. Edward Riggs 7 Oct., 1680 

S.Grace Riggs S.mith ..q Oct., 1708 

6_IsAAC Smith... iS Mar., 1734 

7: Lucy Smith Wheeler... 

22 Dec, 1754 

S.Joseph Wheeler 9 Aug., 1787 

9. Joseph Wheeler. ..10 Sept., 1S36 
io.Joseph Wheeler. ..23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 15-16 

I.Nicholas Smith 1631 

2 .Andrew Smith 1669 

3. Jonah Smith 29 Sept., 1699 

4. Isaac Smith 18 Mar., 1734 

S.Lucy Smith Wheeler 

22 Dec, 1754 

6. Joseph Wheeler 9 Aug., 1787 

7-JosEPH Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

S.Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1S72 

Page 17 
I . Peter Johnson 160S 

2.EBENEZER JOHNSON 1649 

3.EiiENEZER Johnson. .22 Feb , 1687 

4. Sarah Johnson Wheeler 1721 

5. Joseph Wheelek 2 May, 1748 

6. Joseph Wheeler 9 Aug., 1787 

7. Joseph Wheeler. ..id Sept., 1836 
S.Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 



Page 17 

1 . Edward Wooster 1622 

2 . Elizabeth Wooster Johnson . . 165 i 
3.EBENEZER Johnson. .-22 Feb., 1687 

4. Sarah Johnson Wheeler 1721 

5-JosEPH Wheeler 2 May, 1748 

6-Joseph Wheeler 9 Aug., 1787 

7. Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

8. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 19-20 

I .Christopher Jackson 1560 

2 -Edward Jackson 1604 

3.LYDIA Jackson Fuller. 1656 

4. Joseph Fuller July, i68s 

S.Abraham Fuller 23 Mar., 1720 

6-Sarah Fuller Hull. -27 Apr., 1759 

7. Julia Hull Wheeler 

10 Mar., 1799 

S.Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

9-Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 21-22 

I .Francis Nichols 1585 

2. Caleb Nichols 1620 

3. Sarah Nichols Wheeler 

I Dec, 1651 

4. Samuel Wheeler 27 Feb., i63i 

S.James Wheeler ..July, 1716 

6. Joseph Wheeler 2 May, 1748 

7-JosEPH Wheeler 9 Aug., 1787 

S.Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 

9-JosEPH Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 27-28 

I.Harrison Jones .14 Oct., i7S7 

2. Richard Jones 29 June, 1793 

3.DANIELLA Jones Wheeler 

20 Aug., 1841 
4. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 20-21 

I .Christopher Jackson 1 560 

2. Deacon John Jackson i6oo 



IV 



SVXOPSIS AXD IXDEX (Concluded). 



3. Abraham Jackson 1655 

4. Sarah Jackson Fuller. 1683 

5. Abraham Fuller 23 Mar., 1720 , 

6-Sarah Fuller Hill .27 Apr., 1759 
7.JULIA Hull Wheeler. 10 Mar., 1799 1 

8. Joseph Wheeler 10 Sept., 1836 | 

9. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1S72 

Pages 21-22 

I . Francis N ichols -15S5 

2 . Caleb Nichols 1620 

3. Mary Nichols Hull 1674 

4. Joseph Hull 1694 

5. Joseph Hull iS Feb., 172S 

6. William Hull 24 June, 1753 

7. Julia Hull Wheeler 

10 Mar., 1799 
8. Joseph Wheeler ...io Sept., 1S36 
9. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1S72 

Pages 26-30 

I.Thomas Early about 1665 

2. Jeremiah Early Dec, 1705 

3.J0EI. Early 1739 

4. Peter Early zojune, 1773 

5. Lucy Early Jones. ..18 Oct., 1799 

6_Daniella Jones Wheeler 

20 Aug., 1S41 
7. Joseph Wheeler 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 32-33 
(Possibly Edlow.) 

I . M athew Euloe 

2.Matiii:w Edloe 

3.TAHITHA Edloe Bowler 

4. Anne Howler Cocke Jan., 1675 

5.TAHITI1A Cocke Adams 

6. Anne Adams Smith 

7. Francis Smith 1749 



S.Anne Smith Early 17S3 

9. Lucy Early Jones. .18 Oct., 1799 

io.Daniella Jones Wheeler... 

20 Aug., 1 84 1 

II. Joseph Wheeler — 23 Mar., 1872 

Pages 31-32 

I.Richard Adams 

2.ebenezer .a.dams 

3. Anne Adams Smith 

4- Francis Smith 

5. Anne Smith Early 1783 

6. Lucy Early Jones. .18 Oct., 1799 
7-Daniella Jones Wheeler... 

20 Aug., 1 84 1 
3. Joseph Wheeler... 23 Mar., 1S72 

Page 33 

I.Richard Cocke 1600 

2 . Richard Cocke 1 639 

3. Richard Cocke 1672 

4.TABrrHA Cocke Adams 

5. Anne Adams Smith 

6. Francis S.mith 1749 

7. Anne Smith Early 17S3 

S.Lucy Early Jones ..18 Oct., 1799 
9 Daniklla Jones Wheeler. .. 

20 -Aug., 1841 
10. Joseph Wheeler. ..23 Mar., 1572 

Pages 30-31 

I.Nicholas Smith 

2. Nicholas Smith 

3. Francis Smith 

4. Francis S.mith about 1749 

5. Anne Smith Early 1783 

6. Lucy Early Jones.. 18 Oct., 1799 
7.DANIELLA Jones Wheeler... 

20 .^ug., 1841 
S-Josnii Whkei.er . ..23 Mar.. 1S72 



ABRREVIATIOXS, &^c: 

b. — born. m. — married, m. i — first marrriage. m. 2 — second marriage, 
d. — died. dau. — daughter, gen. — generation, gens. — genealogies. 
Names direct in line are indicated by bold type. 



7*1? better appreciate the surroundings of our ancestors in the early 
days of England, it might be well to consider the condition of the coun- 
try at that time, therefore, we recall the names of the English rulers 
and some of the leading events of English history, from the birth of 
John off Hoo, 1400, to the year 1776. 

SO VEREIGNS. 



Henry IV. 


1399- 


Henry VIII, 


1509. 


Charles II, 


1660 


Henry V, 


1413. 


Edward VI, 


1547- 


James II, 


1685 


Henry VI, 


1422. 


Mary, 


1553. 


William & Mary, 


1689 


Edw.^rd IV, 


1461. 


Elizabeth, 


1553. 


Anne, 


1702 


Edward V, 


1433. 


Ja.mes I, 


1603. 


George I, 


'714 


Richard III, 


14S3. 


Charles I, 


1625. 


George II, 


1727 


Henry VII, 


1485. 


Commonwealth, 
Cromwell, 


\ 1649. 


George III, 


1760 



LEADING EVENTS. 

War of the Roses, 1455-14S5. Printing first introduced into England 
from Germany, 1471. Richard III, last of Plantagenets, killed in battle of 
Bosworth, Aug. 23, 1485. Columbus discovered America, 1492. The mother 
of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Anne Boleyn, executed, 1536. Charles I beheaded, 
1649. Union of England and Scotland, 1707. French and Indian War, 1754- 
1763. Canada wrested from France, and in 1757 victories over France laid 
the foundation of England's supremacy in the East. Revolutionary War and 
Independence, 1775-1781. 



The worship of ancestors is a prominent feature in the religion of nearly 
all mankind. The mandate to reverence them is expressed in the christian 
religion in these words: 

" Honor thy father atid thy mother."^ 

It is a sacred duty to keep the memory of their virtues fresh in the minds of 
their descendants. 



WHEELER GENEALOGY. 



Moses Wheeler,* b. Kent County, England, Jan. 5, 
1598; settled in New Haven, 1638; m. Miriam, sister of Joseph 
Hawley ; settled in Stratford, 164S. Was an extensive land- 
holder and influential man. Established ferry over the Housa- 
tonic by charter from General Court. Died January 15, 1698. 
Age 100 years. Rev. Adam Blakeman, the first pastor of Strat- 
ford, married Moses Wheeler's sister. 

2D GEN. OF WHEELERS IX AMERICA. 

Moses Wheeler's children were : 

Elizabeth, b. Aug. i, 1642. Moses, b. July 5, 1651. 
Miriam, b. Mar. 28, 1647. Mary, b. Sept. 13, 1655. 

Samuel, b. April 28, 1649. Joanna, b. Mar. 5, 1658. 

Elizabeth m. (i) Samuel Blakeman, who died; m. (2) Jacob 
Walker. General David Wooster was her grandson. 

Mary m. (i) Samuel Fairchild; (2) Benjamin Beach. 

Moses m. Sarah Nichols, Oct. 10, 1674. d. Jan. 30, 1724. 
He was a wealthy man. 

3D GEx. Their 8 children were : 

Moses, b. July 8, 1675. _ Samuel, b Feb. 27, 1681. 
Caleb, b. Jan. 29, 1677. James, b. Oct. 23, 1683. 

Sarah, b. June 26, 1678. Robert, b. May 18, 1686. 

Nathan, b. Jan. 31, 1680. Elizabeth, b. Aug. 8, 1687. 

Samuel m. (i) Mary Brinsmade, May, 1708. Shed. Feb. 
17 13. m. (2) Lois, widow of Ebenezer Riggs, of Derby. He 
d. 1721. She d. Sept. 11, 1767. 



* In early days spelled Wheler. and sometimes still so spelled in England. 



4TH GEN. Their 4 children were : 

Sarah, b Nov. 6, 17 10. Mary, b. May 30, 17 14. 

Samuel, b. July 25. 1712. JameS, b. July, 1716. — 
James ni. Sarah Johnson, dau. of Lieut. Ebenezer John- 
son, May 19, 1736. Was commissioned Captain in 1756. Was 
a large land-holder at Derby Narrows, d. July 9, 1768. His 
widow d. Sept., 1812. 

5TH GF.X. Their 14 children were : 

Sarah, b. Dec. 27, 1737. Moses, b. July 2S, 1750. -— 

Samuel, b. Sept. 24, 1739. Anna, b. Aug. 10. 1752. 
Simeon, b. April 15, 1741. David, b. Mar. 14, 1754. 
Ruth, b. May 26, 1743. John, b. June 2, 1756. 

James, b. April 6, 1745. Elijah, b. Dec. 22, 175S. 

Dau., b. Mar. i, 1747 (d. infant) Hannah, b. Mar. 25, 1761. 
Joseph, b. May 2, 1748. Sarah, b. April 5, 1764. 
Sarah m. Stephen Whitney, uncle of noted Stephen Whit- 
ney of New York. 

[E.xtracts from ihe Whitney Genealogy, pp 42, 43 and 121 : 
"Stephen Whitney married Sarah Wheeler, born at Derby, Dec. 27, 1737, 
daughter of Capt. James and Sarah (Johnson) Wheeler. 

" His brother, Henry Whitney, married Eunise Clark, born at Derby, 
April 15, 1746. Her sister, Eliza Clark, married Joseph Hull, of Derby, 1749, 
and became the mother of General William Hull, and the grandmother of 
Commodore Isaac Hull. Henry's seventh son was Stephen Whitney, born at 
Derby, 1776, became a millionaire. He died in i!?6o. His estate was ap- 
praised at $4,419,422."] 

Samuel m. Lois Fairchild. Simeon m. Sarah Baldwin. 
James m. Mary Clark of Milford. John m. (ist) Sibyl Todd; 
(2d) Sarah Johnson. Ruth m. Nathan Fairchild. 

Joseph, No. I, m. Sarah Wheeler Apr. 1 I, 177 1 ; shed. Apr. 
10, 1772; m. (2) Lucy Smith, b. Dec. 22, 1754, m. 1773; shed. 
Feb. 13, 1817; he d. June, 1804. Tliey resided in Derby Narrows. 

6th gen. Their children were : 

Sally b. Oct. 2, 1774. Whittlesey, b. Sept. 19, 1784. 

William, b. Apr. 3, 1779. Joseph -\ b. Aug. 9, 1787. 
Nancy, b. Mar. i, 17S2. Mary, b. May 19, 1791. 
Sally m. Jesse Beach, of Litchfield, 1792; d. 1S35. Nancy m. 
Louis Allen, a descendant of Ethan Allen ; moved to New 
Haven; d. 1846. William d. 1S34. Mary m. Levi Hull, iSii, 



y 

brother of Commodore Isaac Hull, U. S. Navy, who captured 
the British frigate Guerriere. d. Mar. 24, 1866. 

Levi and Mary Hull's children were : 

Mary Augusta, m. F. A. Piatt, 185 1. Sarah L., m. P. S. Gal- 
pin, 185 1. William, d. Aug. i, 1833. 

Joseph No. 2, moved when young to Augusta, Ga. He 
m. (i) Sally Bradley, Sept. 8, 1811. She d. Nov. 23, 1821. m. 
{2) Julia Knox Hull, Sept. 12, 1825. She b. Mar. 10, 1799 ; d. 
June 26, 1842. He d. Mar. 24, 1866. 

7TH. GEN. Their 5 children were : 

Sarah M., b. Mar. 7, 1815. Sarah Louise, b. Oct. 25, 1832. 

Lucy Josephine, b. Jan. 5, William Hull. b. Oct. 15, 1834. 

1830. Joseph 3, b. Sept. 10, 1836. 

Sarah m Samuel Jenks Smith, Oct. 12, 1835; d. Dec. 2, 1889. 
Lucy m. Sterling Smith, Sept. 4, 1849; he d. Feb. 23, 1891. Wil- 
liam was an officer of Army of Northern Virginia ; d. Dec. 26, 
1861. Sarah Louise d. Dec. 16, 1884. 

Joseph, No. 3, graduated at West Point, 1859; was se- 
nior Cavalry General Confederate Army; Member of Congress 
since 1880; Major-General U. S. Army, May 4, 1898; commanded 
in the battle of Las Guasimas, June 24, and was senior officer 
on the field in the battle of San Juan, July 1-3, 1898, and was 
senior member of the Commision which negotiated for the sur- 
render of the 23,000 Spanish troops in Santiago. 

In August, 1898, he was put in command of the 26,000 troops 
at Montauk Point, and Oct. 4 was transferred to the command 
of the Fourth Army Corps. In 1899 he served in the Philip- 
pines in the battles which resulted in the dispersion of the 
Aguinaldo government. Is now a general officer in the regular 
U. S. Army. 

He m. Daniella Jones, Feb. 8, 1866. She d. May 19, 1896. 

For an extract from CuUum's " Register of the Graduates of 
the Military Academy," see Appendix C. 

8th gen. Their children were : 

Joseph, Jr., b. Mar. 23, 1S72. Ella, d. young. 
Lucy Louise. Julia K. H. 

Annie Early. Thomas H. 

Carrie Pevton. 



f' 



lO 



Joseph, Jr.. No. 4, graduated at West Point, 1895. Was 
distinguished in the battles in Cuba, June and July, 1898, and 
as Major 34th Infantry was distinguished in many battles in the 
Philippines. Is now Captain Corps of Artillery, U. S. Army. 

Annie E. Wheeler was with Miss Clara Barton, as a volunteer 
Red Cross Nurse, at Santiago, Cuba, July and August, 1898. 
She organized and superintended the " Club House Hospital" 
in Santiago harbor, and was afterward a volunteer Red Cross 
nurse in the Philippines. 

Thomas H. Wheeler was Cadet Xaval Academy, and served 
as an officer during the Spanish war, at Santiago and vicinity, 
upon war cruiser Columbia, and was drowned at Montauk Point, 
L. I., Sept. 7, 1898, in efforts to rescue a companion. 



WHEELER— HULL. 

Richard Hull, born in England about 1599; made free- 
man in Boston April, 1634; removed to Xew Haven, Conn., 
1639; Representative to General Assembly ; d. Sept., 1662. 

2D GEN. His 4 children were : 

John, b. 1640. Jeremiah, b. 1644. 

Hannah, b. 1642. Marv b. 1646. 

Hannah m. Edward Dorman. Mary m. John Jackson. 

John Hull, b. 1640. Removed to Derby, which town he 
represented in the General Assembly ; afterward went to W^al- 
lingford, where he was a large holder of lands granted for ser- 
vices rendered as surgeon in King Philip's war; m. Mary Jones; 
d. Dec. 6, 171 1. 

3D GEN. Their 8 children were : 

John, b. Mar. 14, 1662. Richard, b 167S. 

Samuel, b. Feb. 4, 1664. Ebenezer, b. Sept. 28, 1679. 

Mary, b. Oct. 31, 1666. Jeremiah, b. 1680. 

Joseph, b. Feb. 16, 166S. Andrew, b. 16S5. 
Benjamin, b. Apr. 10, 1672. 

John ni. Hannah Prindle. Mary m. Joseph Prindle. 
Joseph Hull, of Derby, b. 166S, m. Mary Nichols, 1691; 
d. 1744. 



II 



4TH GEN. Their 8 children were : 

Samuel, b. 1692. Mary, b. 1699. 

Joseph, No. 2, b. 1694. Sarah, b. 1701. 

Caleb, b. 1696. Abijah, b. 1703. 

Andrew, b. 1698. Nathan, b. 1709. 

Joseph Hull, No. 2, b. 1694, was a farmer and Member of 
General Assembly; m. Sarah, 1725. 

5TH GEX. Their 3 children were : 

Anna, b. Sept. 7, 1726: m. Rev. Dr. Mansfield of ©erby. 
Joseph, No. 3, b. Feb. 18, 1728. 
Elizabeth, b. Nov. 18, 1731; d. Apr. 16, 1738. 
Joseph Hull, No. 3, b. 1728: m. Elizabeth Clark, of Lime 
Centre, )749; d. 1775. 

6th gen. Their 8 children were : 

Joseph, No. 4, b. 1750. Levi, b. 1754. 

Samuel, b. 1751. Eliza, b. 1756. 

Isaac, b. 1752. " David, b. 1764. 

William, b. 1753. Sarah, b. 1766. 

Joseph, No. 4, was Lieutenant of Artillery during the Revo- 
lutionary war; also commanded flotilla and captured, by board- 
ing, two armed British vessels. He married Sarah Bennett, 
daughter of Deacon Daniel Bennett, who entertained the Duke 
of Lauzun and his officers when marching to join Washington 
at the Highlands. He d. 1825. He was the father of Commo- 
dore Isaac Hull, of the United States Navy, b. Mar. 9, 1775, d. 
Feb., 1843; and was grandfather of Commodore Joseph B. Hull, 
U. S. Navy, b. Apr. 26, 1802, d. Jan. 17, 1890. 

Samuel was a Lieutenant in the war of the Revolution. 

David Hull, b. 1764; m. Miss Eliot of Boston. Their daugh- 
ter, Susan, m. John C. Sanford, of New York. Their daughter, 
Susan Elizabeth, m., June 16, 1853, Theodore Salter of New 
York. 

(See Hull Genealogy, by Clarke, p. 6; and History of Stratford, p. 388; 
History of Derby, p. 78S ; and Colonial Records of Conn.) 

William Hull, b. June 24, 1753; educated at Yale College; 
a lawyer in 1775; captain, major, and lieutenant-colonel during 
the Revolutionary War; was distinguished in the battles of 



12 



White Plains, Trenton, Princeton, Ticonderoga, Stillwater, Sara- 
toga, Monmouth and Stoney Point, and, wiih Washington, cov- 
ered the retreat of the American army after the battle of Long 
Island. Was a judge in Massachusetts; major-general of the 
Massachusetts Militia; Senator; brigadier-general U. S. Army, 
and Governor of Michigan. For a more extended sketch of this 
distinguished American, see Appendix A, p. 49. 

He m. Sarah, only daughter of Hon. Abraham Fuller, of 
Newton, in 1781. 

7TH GEN. Their 8 children were : 

Sarah, b. 20 Jan., 17S3. Maria, b. 7 June, 1788. 

Eliza, b. 22 Jan., 1784. Rebecca Parker, b. 7 Feb., 

Abraham Fuller, b. S Mar., [i790- 

[1786. Caroline, b. 30 Apr., 1793. 

Ann Binney, b. 19 June. Julia KnOX, b. 10 Mar., 

[1787- [1799- 

Sarah m. Judge John McKesson of New York, 26 Aug., 1802. 
Eliza m. Isaac McLellan, of Portland, 13 Mar., 1805. 
Ann Binney m. Capt. H. H. Hickman, U. S. Army, 1808. 
Abraham graduated at Harvard, 1S05; was Capt. 9th Inf., U. 
S. Army ; killed while gallantly leading his regiment in a charge 
at Lundy's Lane, July 25, 1S14. Lossing's History of the War 
of 181 2, p. 82S, has a picture of his tombstone, on which is in- 
scribed : 

"This was erected by his brother officers to mark the spot where Capt. 
Hull, U. S. Army, fell in the memorable action at Lundy's Lane, 25 July, 
1814, gallantly leading his men to the charge." 

Lossing also says : 

" He was an excellent officer, and his loss was much lamented." 

Captain Hull's father was General William Hull, of the 
Revolution. His unices, Samuel and Joseph, also were distin- 
guished officers of the Revolution; and Commodore Isaac Hull, 
of the U. S. Navy, who captured the British frigate Giu'rricn\ 
was his first cousin. 

General Wheeler, the nephew of Captain Hull, recently 
visited his grave at Lundy's Lane and found it well cared for. 

Maria m. Edward Fenwick Campbell, of Augusta. Georgia. 
His Fenwick ancestry was a very ancient and distinguished 



13 

family, including Roger Fenwick, who was killed in an assault 
while mounting the breeches at the siege of Dunkirk, 14 June, 
165S, and Sir John Fenwick, Baronet, who was tried by Parlia- 
ment November 6, 1696, to January 11, 1697, for adhering to 
King James The vote in the House of Lords was 66 for, to 60 
against the bill of attainder, and in the House of Commons 1S9 
to 156. [State Trials, vol. 13, pp. 53S to 759. J 

The family have lived for fourteen centuries near Xewcastle- 
on-Tyne. In this country they were connected with the Dray- 
tons and Tattnalls of South Carolina and Georgia, and Col. 
John Roger Fenwick, U. S. Army. 

Rebecca Parker m. Dr. Samuel Clarke, of Newton, Mass., 18 
May, 1805. Rev. James Freeman Clarke, D.D., was her son. 

Caroline m. Rufus K. Page of Hallowell, Me., 25 Mar., 1819. 

Julia Knox m. Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, of Augusta, 

Ga., 12 Sept. 1825 ; d. 26 June, 1842. 

Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, born Sept. 10, 
1836. His son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., b. Mar. 23, (872, 
now Captain of Artillery, U. S. Army. (See Wheeler Gene- 
alogy.) 

WHEELER— FULLER. 

John Fuller, b. 1620; came with J. Winthrop, Jr., in the 
Abigail (Hackwell, master), in 1635 ; settled in Newton, 1644.* 
Was a wealthy man and one of the largest land-owners in the 
town, and the family owned what is now a part of Newton for 
200 years. Twenty-two of his desendants from that town were 

in the war of the Revolution, m. Elizabeth ; d. Feb. 7, 1696. 

She d. Apr. 13, 1700. 

2D GEN. IN .AMERICA. Their 8 child rcn wcrc : 

John, b. 1645. Joshua, b. 1654. 

Jonathan, b. 1648. Jeremiah, b. 1658. 

Elizabeth, b. 1650. Bertha, b. 1661. 

Joseph, b. 1652. Isaac, b. 1665. 

John m. (i) Abigail Boyleston, 1682; (2) Margaret Hicks, 
1714. Elizabeth m. Job Hyde, 1667. Joshua m. Elizabeth, dau. 
of John Ward, Jr., of Newton, 1679. 



* Clarke's " Fullers of New England." p. 3. speaks of Edward Fuller and Dr. Samuel 
Fuller and John Fuller as of the same lamily. but does not state what relation, if any, existed. 
Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller is a direct descendant of Edward Fuller. 



14 

Joseph Fuller, b. 1652; m. Dec, 16S0, Lydia Jackson, 
dau. ot Edward Jackson, of Newton; was Captain of the New- 
ton Horse Co., and was Selectman for 5 years; d. 5 Jan. 1740. 
His wife, Lydia, d. in 1726. 

31) GEN. Their 7 children were : 

John, b. 1 68 1. Edward, b. 7 Mar., 1694. 

Joseph, 2, b. 4 July, 16S5. Isaac, b. 16 Mar, 1698. 
Jonathan, b. 7 Jan., 16S7. Elizabeth, b. i July, 1701. 

Lydia, b. 15 Feb., 1692. 

Lydia m. Stratton. Elizabeth m. Josiah Bond, 1720. Some 
of the nieces of Joseph Fuller, No. i, married as follows : 

Elizabeth, dau. of Joshua, m. Isaac Shepard, 1702. Han- 
nah m. Stephen Cook, of Watertown. Experience m. (i) 
Mason ; (2) John Child. Mercy m. Cady. Abigail m. 
Joseph Garfield. Sarah m. Richard Park. Ruth m. 
Cheney. 

Joseph Fuller, No. 2, b. July 4, 1685; m. May 11, 1719, 
Sarah, dau. of Abraham Jackson ; was chosen representative to 
General Court in 1749; was Sel,ectman six years; d. 23 April, 
1766. Wife d. 21 Nov., 1764. ^ 

4TH GEN. Their 2 children were : 

Abraham, b. 23 Mar., 1720. Elizabeth, b. Oct.. 1722. 

Elizabeth m. Rev. Isaac Jones, of Weston, 1749. 

Abraham Fuller, b. 23 Mar., 1720; m. Sarah Dyer, of 
Weymouth, in 175S. He was Selectman 4 years; Representative 
in General Court 18 years ; Delegate to Provincial Congress; 
Senator, Councillor, and Judge of Court of Common Pleas, 
Middlesex County; was a member of the Convention assembled 
in 1788 to ratify the Constitution of the L'nited States; d. 20 
April, 1794. His wife d. 7 April, 1803. 

5TH GEN. 

Their dau., Sarah Fuller, b. 27 April, 1759; m. Col. \Vm. 
Hull in 1 781, a distinguished officer of the Revolution. He d. 
'"\ Oct., 1825; she d. I Aug., 1826. 

6th gen. 

Their dau., Julia Knox, m. Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, 
of Augusta, Ga. 



15 
7 111 GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b. 1836. 
8th gen. His son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., No. 4, b. 1872. 
(See Wheeler and Hull gens.) 

WHEELER— SMITH. 

Nicholas Smith, b. in Holland, 1631 ; m. July 12, 1664, 
Mary or Mercy Tibbals (b.- 1643), dau. of Captain Thomas 
Tibbals, of Milford. Oct. 28, 1662, was granted one-half an 
acre of land in Milford, Conn. 

2D GEN. Their children were : , 

Samuel, b. Feb. 14, 1667. John, b. July 20, 1774. 
Martha, b. Apr. 7, 1669. Cornelius, b. Dec. 12, 1675. 

Andrew, b. Dec. 3, 1670. Josiah, b. July, 1677. 
Sarah, b. July 19, 1673. Hannah, b. July 29, 1681. 

Andrew Smith (b. Dec 3, 1673; d. Mar., 1727), son of 
Nicholas Smith and Mary Tibbals of Milford, removed to Derby 
and died there. He m. May 21, 1696, Sarah Tomlinson, dau. of 
William Tomlinson, of Derby. 

3D GEN. Their children were : 

Nathan, b. 9 Feb., 1697. Rachael, b. 24 Mar., 1708. 

Jonah, b. 22 Sept., 1699. Andrew, b. 3 Oct., 171 1. 

Hannah, b. 12 May, 1701. Joseph, b 29 July, 1715. 

Josiah, b. 15 June, 1703. Hannah, b. 12 May, 1718. 

Mary, b. 12 Feb , 1705. 
Jonah Smith m. Grace Riggs 22 Mar., 1726. 
4TH GEN. Their 5 children were : 

Isaac, b. 18 Mar., 1734. Hannah, b. 15 July, 1742. 

Sarah, b. i July, 1738. Edward, b. 25 Sept., 174S. 

Esther, b. 18 Dec, 1739. 
Isaac Smith m. Lucy Clarke, dau. William and Hannah 
Clarke, and sister to Elizabeth Clarke, wife of Joseph Hull, 30, 
cf Derby. 

5TH GEN. Their 3 children were : 

Lucy, b. 22 Dec, 1754, d. 13 Feb., 1S17. 

Esther, b. 4 Feb., 1756. Charity, b. 22 Dec, 1/5/. 

Lucy Smith m. Joseph Wheeler, No. i, 1773. 



16 

6rH GEN. Their son. Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, b. 9 
Aug, 1787. 

7TH GEN. His son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b. 1S36. 

8th gen. His son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr, No. 4, b. 
1872. (See Wheeler and Riggs gens.) 

WHEELER— DYER. 

Thomas Dyer, freeman, 1640; Representative to General 
Court 1646 to 1650; d. 1676. Wife, Agnes. 

2L- GEN. Their children were : 

Mary, b. 1641. Sarah, b. 1649. 

John. b. 1643. Thomas Xo 2, b 1651. 

Thomas, b. 1645. Joseph,)^^ ^^3 

Abigail, b. 1647. Benjamin, ) 

Joseph E)yer, freeman, 1681; m. Hannah, 16S2. 
3D GEN. Their children were : 

Hannah, b 10 Oct., 1682. John, b. 9 Apr., 1692. 

Hannah, b. 13 Feb., 1684. Thomas, b. 15 Apr. 1694. 

Joseph, 2, h. 19 Jan , 1686. Mehitabel. b. 9 June, 1700. 

Beniamin, b. 13 Apr., 1688. Sarah, b. 29 Aug., 1702. 
Mary, b 12 April, 1690. 

Joseph Dyer, No. 2, m. Jane Stephens, 1726. 
4TH GEN. Their 6 children were : 

Sarah, b 20 Mar., 1727. Asa, b. 26 July, 1739. 
Jane, b 2 May, 1729. Mary, b 13 Mar.. 1744 

Joseph, b. 7 Sept., 1733. James, b. 14 June, 1746. 

Sarah m. Judge Abraham Fuller, 1758. 

5TH GEN. Their dau., Sarah, b. 1759; m. Col. Wm. Hull, 
17S1 , d. Aug. 1826. 

6th gen. Their dau., Julia Knox Hull, b. 1799; m. 
Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, of Augusta, Ga., 1825. 

7TH GEN. Their son, Joseph, No. 3, b. 1836. 

8th gen. His son, Joseph, Jr., No. 4. b. 1872. (See 
Wheeler, Hull, and Fuller gens.) 



17 
WHEELER— JOHNSON— WOOSTER. 

Peter Johnson b. in England about i6oS; in Boston, 1638- 
removed to Fairfield 1649. 

2D GEN. His son, Ebenezer Johnson, b. 1649; settled in 
Stratford and removed to Derby about 1668; m. Elizabeth, dau. 
of Edward Wooster, in 1671. (Edward Wooster, of Milford, b. 
m England, 1622; was one of the first settlers of Derby. He 
was grandfather of Gen. David Wooster, who served with great 
honor in the Revolution, and d. 1777) 

3D GEN. Their children were : 

Elizabeth, b. 1672. Ebenezer, 2, b. 22 Feb., 1687. 

Eunice, b. 1678. Timothy, b. 1693. 

Hannah, b. 1680. Charles, b. 1696. 
Peter, b. 1684. 

Ebenezer, No. 2, b. 1687 ; m. Elizabeth Hine, 19 Feb., 
1 7 19; was Lieutenant, 1722; was Selectman of Derby for many 
years; d. 10 Sept., 1751. 

4TH GEN. Their children were : 

Hannah, b. 1719. David, b. 1725. 

Sarah, b. 1721. Ann, 26 June, 1727. 

Ebenezer, b. 1723. Alexander, Sept., 1729. 

Sarah Johnson m. Capt. James Wheeler, 19 May, 
1736. 

5TH GEN. Their son, Joseph, No. i, b. 1748. 

6th GEN. His son Joseph, No. 2, b. 1787. 

7TH GEN. His son Joseph, No. 3, b. 1836. 

8th GEN. His son, Joseph, Jr., No. 4, b. 1872. (See 
Wheeler genealogy.) 

WHEELER— RIGGS. 

Edward Riggs, b. about 15S5; m. Elizabeth; came from 
England and settled in Roxbury, Mass., 1633; d. 1672. 

2D GEN, Their children were : 

Lydia, Elizabeth, Edward, Mary. 

WHEL. GEN. — 2. 



i8 

Edward, b. in England, about 1605; was sergeant in Pe- 
quot war, 1637. Wallace's '• Riggs Genealogy" says : 

" In 1637 he was a sergeant in the Pequot War and greatly distinguished 
himself in rescuing his commander and 12 of his companions from an ambus- 
cade. The bravery of this act is a prominent feature in the history of the 
campaign." 

'' Hubbard's Indian Wars," pp. 33-34, speaks of a fight in 
which Sergeant Edward Riggs was engaged with the Pequots 
in a swamp near the present site of Stratford, July 13, 1637, and 
says : 

"Some were in danger of the enemies' arrows that flew thick about them; 
others were in as much hazard of being swallowed by the mirey bogs of the 
swamp, wherein they stuck so fast that if Sergeant Riggs of Roxbury had not 
rescued two or three of them, they had fallen into the hands of the enemy; 
but such was the strength and courage of those that came to the rescue, that 
some of the Indians were slain with their swords." 

He settled in Milford, Conn., 1646, and in 1654 he and Ed- 
ward Wooster moved to Derby and were its first settlers. Ser- 
geant Riggs rn. Elizabeth Roosa, 1635. 

3D (JE\. Their children were : 

Edward, Samuel, Joseph. Mary. 

Samuel ni. (i) Sarah Baldwin, 14 June, 1667; (2) Sarah 
Washburn, 6 May, 1713; Representative several years; Select- 
man of Derby for many years; Ensign, 1690; Justice of the 
Peace, 1703. A man of ability and means. 

4TH GEX. Their children were : 

Samuel, b. 1671. Elizabeth, b. 7 Oct.. 16S0. 

Sarah, b. 1672. Edward, b. 7 Oct., 16S0. 

Sarah, b. 1674. Sarah, 16S3. 

John, b. 1676. Joseph, b 1686. 

Ebenezer, b. 15 Oct., 1678. 

Edward, b. 7 Oct., 1680; m. Abigail Nichols, 5 Jan., 1708; 
d 25 Nov., 1712. 

5TH (".EN. Their children were : 

Grace, b 9 Oct., 1708. Esther, b. 1713. 

Abigail, b. 1 7 1 1. 
Grace Riggs, b. 170S. m. Jonah Smith. 22 Mar.. 1726. 



19 

6th gen. Their son, Isaac Smith, b. i8 Mar., 1734; m. 
Lucy Clarke. 

7TH OF.x. Their dau., Lucy Smith, b. 22 Dec, 1754; m. 

Joseph Wheeler, No. i, 1773; d. 13 Feb., 1S17. 

8th gex. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, b. 9 
Aug., 1787; m. Julia Knox Hull. 

9TH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b. 10 
Sept., 1836. 

loTH GEN. His son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., No. 4, b. 21, 

Mar., 1872. (See Wheeler, Hull, Smith gens.) 

WHEELER— FULLER— JACKSON. 

Christopher Jackson, b. England about 1560. 
2D GEN. His sons were : 

Deacon John Jackson, b. London about 1600. 

Edward Jackson, b. London about 1602; bapt. 3 Feb., 
1604. 

Edward Jackson, freeman, 1645; settled in Newton. 1646; 
m. (i) in England about 1630; (2) Mrs. Elizabeth Oliver, ne'e 
Newgate, 1649. 

3D GEN. His children were : 

Frances. Jonathan. 

Israel. Sebas. 

Margaret, b. 1633. Sarah, b. 1649. 

Hannah, b. 1634. Edward, b. 1652. 

Rebecca, b. 1636. Lydia, b. 1656. 

Caleb, b. 1638. Elizabeth, b. 1658. 

Joseph, b. 1639. Ruth, b. 1664. 

Sebas (Seaborn) is supposed to have been born on the pas- 
sage to America; he was the youngest son of the English wife. 
Lydia m. Joseph Fuller, 1679. 

4TH GEN. Their son, Joseph, b. 4 July, 1685; m. Sarah, 
dau. Abraham Jackson. 

5TH GEN. Their son, Abraham Fuller, b. 23 Mar., 
1720; m. Sarah Dyer. 



20 

6th gen. Their ciau . Sarah, b. 1759; m. Col. \Vm. Hull. 

7TH r.EN. Their dau., Julia Knox, b. 1799; m. Joseph 
Wheeler, No. 2. 

Sth ge.n. His son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b. 1836. 

9TH GEN. His son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 4, b. 1872. 

(See Wheeler, Fuller, Hull gens.) 

WHEELER— JACKSON. 

Christopher Jackson, b. England about 1560. 
2D GEN. His sons were : 

Deacon John Jackson, b. London, bapt. 3 Feb., 1604. 

Edward, b. London, bapt. 3 Feb., 1604. 

Deacon John settled in Newton, 1639; freeman 1641. 

3D GEN. His children were : 

John, b. 1639. Deliverance, b. 1657. 

Caleb, b. 1645. Joshua, b. 1659. 

Hannah, b. 1646. Isobel, b. 1661. 

Abigail, b. 1647. Mary, b. 1662. 

Margaret, b. 1649. Grace. 

Edward, b. 1650. Theodosia. 

Ann. Sarah. 

Abraham, 1655. 

Abraham m. Elizabeth I-3isco. 

4TH GEN. Their children were : 

Elizabeth, b. 1680. Mary, b. 16S9. 

lohn. b. 1C82. Abigail, b. 1690. 

Sarah, b. 16S3 Abigail, b. 1692. 

Margaret, b. 16S5. Abraham, b. 1693. 

Mary, b. 1686. Thomas, b. 1O94. 
Hannah, 1687. 

Elizabeth m. Ephraim Williams. Her first son was the foun- 
der of Williams College. Hannah m. (1) James Trowbridge, 
Jr., 1712 ; (2) John Fuller, son of Joseph Fuller, Sr., Feb., 1716. 
Sarah m. Joseph Fuller, 2, 11 May, 1719. 



J. 



21 

5TH GEN. Their son was Abraham Fuller, b. 23 Mar., 
1720; m. Sarah Dyer. 

6th r.EN. His dau., Sarah, b. 1759; m. Col. \Vm. Hull 

7TH GEN. Their dau, Julia Knox, b. 1799; m. Jos- 
eph Wheeler, No 2. 

8th gen. Their son was Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b 

1836. 

9TH gen. His son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., No. 4, b. 

1872. (See Wheeler, Fuller and Hull gens.) 

WFIEELER— NICHOLS. 

Sergeant Francis Nichols b. England about 1595; one of 
the original proprietors in Stratford, Conn., and Southold, L. I., 
1639 ; was closely related — probably brother — to Col. Richard 
Nichols, first English Governor of New York, and commander, 
under the Duke of York, of the fleet which took the New 
Netherlands from the Dutch in 1664. (See Ms. of C. W. de 
Lyon Nichols, and History of Stratford, p. 1251.) 

2D gen. His 5 children were : 

Isaac, b. England. Daughter, b England. 

Caleb, b. ' " Anne, b. after 1639. 

John, b 

Caleb Nichols m. Anne, dau. of Andrew Ward, of Fair- 
field, d. 1690. 

3D gen. Their 13 children were : 

Sarah, b. i Dec, 1651. Abigail, b. 6 Feb., 1664. 

Anne, b. 5 Mar., 1653. Hannah, b 6 Aug., 1667. 

Esther, b. 17 Feb. 1055. Caleb, b. Feb., 1669. 

Joseph, b. 22 Dec, 1656. Phebe. b. 12 Nov., 167 1. 

Samuel, b. 29 Mar , 1658. Mary, b. 1674. 

Andrew, b. 28 Nov., 1659. John, b. 12 Nov., 1676. 
Abraham, b. 19 Jan., 1662. 

Sarah m Moses Wheeler, Jr., 20 Oct., 1674. Esther m. 
John Prentice. Abigail m. Wm. Martin. Hannah m Wm. 
Nichols. Phebe m. Isaac Knell, Jr. Mary m. Joseph Hull. 



Joseph Wheeler, Xo. 3, b. 1836, was 7 in descent from 
Sarah Nichols (Wheeler), and also 7 in descent from her sis- 
ter, Mary Nichols (Hull), and 9 in descent from Sergeant 
Francis Nichols. (See Wheeler and Hull gens.) 



WHEELER— NEWGATE— DE HOO or HOO. 

The records of the Hoo or de Hoo and the Newgate or New- 
digate families, from whom the Jackson, Fuller, and Wheeler 
families are descended, are taken from records of wills, family 
records, tombstones, and from Salisbury's Genealogies and 
Berry's County Genealogies. 

Professor Salisbury's valuable work on Genealogy, p. 502, 
says : 

"We have abstracts of the principal Hoo wills recorded at Bury-St -Ed- 
munds, and find no mention of any transmission of land except in the line we 
give as that of Walter Hoo. But, as we have seen, we can with great proba- 
bility go farther back with our line of Hoos ; for the same lands appear to 
have been held in the same family for at least four generations previous to 
'John off Hoc' who died in 1485, which would make Walter Hoo to have 
been of at least the seventh generation in possession." 

The genealogical works we have mentioned give very strong 
circumstantial, and what is very short of positive, evidence that 
the De Hoo line extends without break or interruption from Sir 
Robert Hoo, who died 1000, to John off Hoo, who died 14S5 — 
he being the 10th gen. from Sir Robert Hoo; but in order to 
adhere to our determination to reject all records which are not 
sustained by unquestioned evidence, we commence the record 
of the Hoo family with John off Hoo, whose extensive land 
holdings Salisbury and other writers upon genealogy assert had 
been in possession of the same family — his immediate ancestors 
— for at least four generations. 

isi GEN. John off Hoc, of Hessett Co., Suffolk, born 
about 1400; built the chapel and battlements of the church of 
St. Ethelbert, in Hessett, prior to 1480. Will dated 14S5. Sir 
Walter Hoo, his principal executor, m. Katherine, dau. and heir 
of Reynold Tylly. Salisbury's and other works upon genealogy 
assert that he is descended in the 10th generation from Sir 
Robert Hoo, Knight of Hoo, who died 1000. 



23 

2d GEX. John off Hoo's children were : 

John at HOO, buried 1558. 

Robert Hoo. Will dated 1500, proved 1519; desired to 
be buried in St. Ethelbert : m. Agnes ; s. p. They 
gave the font to the church of St. Ethelbert. 
John at Hoo m. 
3D GEN. His children were : 

Gualther Hooe (Walter Hoo) of Rougham, prob- 
ably named for Sir Walter Hoo, witnessed will of 
Henry Hoo, 1538 ; his own will dated .1587, proved 
1589. He inherited the estate transmitted by John 

off Hoo; m. i, ; m. 2, Agnes Lockwood, Oct., 1561 

— she d. 1586. 

Henry of Hessett, will dated 1538. 

Robert of Hessett, in 1570; m. 

John. 

William of Hessett, m. Alys ; will proved 1541; de- 
sired to be buried in churchyard of Hessett ; left 
legacies to father, mother, children, bretheren, sisters 
and the church; wife Alys sole executrix. John and 
Robert Hoo witnessed his will. 

Edmond. 
4TH GEN. Gualther Hoo's children were : 

John, eldest son and heir; m. (i), Elizabeth buried 

1626; m. (2), Elizabeth buried 1651. 

Jeremy, m. John, 2d. youngest son, m. 

Joane, youngest dau. of Gualther Hoo, m. 13 Dec, 
1578, Phillipe Newegate of Great Horningsheath — 
buried Aug. i, 1636; will dated July 5, 163C. Joane 
buried Oct. 10, 1620. 

5TH GEN. Their children were : 

John, b. Southwark, 1580. Joseph, bapt. Dec. 8, 1585. 

Audrey, bapt. Feb. 25, 1581. Marie, bapt. Apr. 8, 1588. 

John, 2d, bapt. Nov. 24, 1583. Anne. 
John Newdigate (b. 1580) m. Lidia ; d. 1620. 

6th gen. Their dau. was Elizabeth Newdigate, b. 

1617, near London: m. (i), Rev. John Oliver; m. (2), Edward 
Jackson, Sr., of Newton, Mass., 1649. 



24 

7TH GEN. Their dau. was Lydia JackSOn, b. 1656: m. 
Dec. 1680, Joseph Fuller — b. 1652. 

8th gen. Their son, Joseph Fuller, 2, b. 1685; m. May 
IX, 1719, Sarah, dau. Abraham Jackson. 

9TH GEN. Their son, Abraham Fuller, b. Mar. 23, 1720; 
m. Sarah Dyer of Weymouth, 1758. 

loTH GEN. Their dau., Sarah Fuller, b. Apr. 27, 1759; m. 
Col. Wm. Hull, in 1781; he b. June 24, 1753, d. 1825; she d. Aug. 
I, 1826. 

iiTH GEN. Their dau., Julia KnOX Hull, b. Mar. 10, 
1799; m. Joseph Wheeler, Xo. 2; he b. Aug. 9, 17S7, d. 1866; she 
d. June 26, 1842. 

I2TH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, 3, b. Sept. lo. 

1836; m. Daniella Jones, Feb. 8, 1866. 

13TH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, 4, b. 1S72 (See 
Wheeler, Hull and Xewdigate gens.) 



WHEELER— XEWDIGATE. 

Branch of Norfolk family of Neicgate or Newdigate, a Branch 
from the ancient family in Surrey. 

1ST GEN. William Newgate or Newdigate, of 

Ickworth, 2^4 miles from Bury St. Edmund's Co.. Suffolk; b. 
1485; will dated Sept. 28, 1528, proved 1530; desired to be bur- 
ied at Ickworth; m. Katherine. 

2D GEN. Their children were : 

Robert the Elder, will states "under 16 years of 
age, 28 Sept.. 1528," of Great Horningsheath Co., 

Suffolk; m. Thomasine . who d. Dec, 1599; he d. 

1 60S. 

Richard, will states "under 16 years of age, 28 Sept., 1528." 

"Robert the Younger," will states "under 16 years of age, 
28 Sept., 1528 " 

Elizabeth, will states "under 16 years, 28 Sept., 1528"; m. 
John Hande, 1558. ^ 



;^D GEN. Tlie children of "Robert the Elder" and Thomasine 
were : 

Phillipe Newegate, of Great Hornlngsheath, bur- 
ied Aug. I, 1636; will dated July 5, 1636; m. Joane, 
daughter of Gualther Hoo of Hessett, Dec. 13, 1578; 
buried Oct. 10, 1620. 

Robert, bapt. July, 1563, buried 1632; m. Elizabeth Buck- 
inham, Feb. 21, 1586. 

Anne m. Henry Frost, Oct. 4, 1601. 

Rose m. James Bower, Feb. 22, 1578. 

4TH GEN. The children of Phillipe Newegate and Joane 
Hoo were : 

John Newdigate, born in Southwark, near London 
Bridge, circ, 1580; "in Boston, New England, 1632;" 

Freeman of Mass., 1634; d. 1665 ; m. i, Lidia , d 

1620; m. 2, Thomasine Hayes, Nov. i, 1620, d. 1625; 
m. 3, Anne ( ) Hunt Draper. 

Andrey or Adrean = Andrianne, bapt. Feb. 25, 1581, to 
whom her father gave all the estate left after his de- 
cease. He had probably given his lands previously to 
his eldest son. 

John 2d, bapt. Nov. 24, 1583; of Bury St. Edmund's. Will 
proved, 1649: left property to brother John, in New 

England, and to brother Joseph, m. Sarah , who 

m. 2dly Thomas Frost. 

Joseph, bapt. Dec. 1585; d. after 1642. 

Maria, bapt. Apr. 8, 158S; buried, 1594. 

Anne, m. Robert Manning, 1616. 

5TH GEN. The children of John Newdigate and Lidia were: 

Thomas, bapt. 1613; d. infant. 

John, bapt. 1616, d. infant. 

Elizabeth, bapt. 1617-1S; m. i. Rev. John Oliver; m. 

2, Edward Jackson, 14 Mar., 1649. 
Lidia, bapt. 1620; d. infant. 

Children by 2d mar. were : 

Sarah, bapt. 162 i; m, Capt. Peter Oliver 
John, bapt. 1624; d. before Nov. ^5, 1664. 



26 

Children by 3d mar. were : 

Nathaniel, bapt. Apr. 4. 1627; will proved 1668; m. Isa- 
bella, dau. of Richard Lewis, Esq., sister of Sir John 
Lewis, Bart., of Ledston Co., York, who m. 2dly, John 
Johnson. 

Joseph, not 24 years old in 163S; m. Elizabeth; d. about 
1658. 

Hannah, b. June 28, 1635; d. 1684; m. Simon Lynde. 

6th oex. The children of Elizabeth Newdigateand Edward 

Jackson were : 
Sarah, b. Jan. 5, 1650; bapt. April 21, 1650; m. Rev. Ne- 

hemiah Hobert. 

Edward, b. Dec. 15, 1652. 

Lydia, b. 1656; m. Joseph Fuller, Dec. 1680; d. 12 Jan., 

1726. Her husband, Joseph Fuller, b. 1652; d. 5 Jan., 
1740. 

Elizabeth, b. 165S: m. i, John Prentice, 2, Bond. 

Hannah, m. Nathaniel Wilson. 

Ruth, d. unmarried. 

7TH GEN. The children of Lydia Jackson and Joseph Fuller 
were : 

John, b. 1681. Edward, b. 7 Mar., 1694. 

Joseph, 2, b. 4 July, 1685. Isaac, b. 16 Mar, 1698. 

Johnathan, b. 7 Jan., 1686. Elizabeth, b. i July, 1701. 

Lydia, b. 15 Feb., 1692. 
Joseph m. Sarah, dau. Abraham Jackson, May 11, 17 19. 
8th gen. Their children were : 

Abraham, b. 23 Mar., 1720; m. Sarah Dyer, 1755. 

Elizabeth, b. Oct., 1722. 

9TH GEN. The dau. of Abraham Fuller and Sarah Dyer was 
Sarah Fuller, b. Apr. 27, 1759; "■>• Col. \Vm. Hull, 1781 (a dis- 
tinguished officer of the Revolution); he d. Nov. 25, 1S25; she d. 
2 1 Aug., 1826. 

loiH (.FN. Their dau., Julia KnOX, b. 10 Mar., 1799; m. 

Joseph Wheeler, No. 2, of Augu^ta. Ga., 12 Sept., 1825. 
iriii (.EN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 3, b. 10 

Sept., 1836; m. Daniella Jones, S I\l>., 1S60. 

12TH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, 4, b. 23 Mar., 
1872. (See Wheeler and Hull gen.-;.) 



27 

WHEELER— JONES. 

Harrison Jones, b. Cumberland Co., Va., 14 Oct., 1757; 
a soldier of the Revolution ; had leg shot off at battle of Guil- 
ford Court House, 15 Mar., 1781; received a pension for servi- 
ces; d. 12 Jan., 1S41, near Oxford, Miss. 

The first certificate for pension vi'as from the State of Vir- 
ginia, and was in the following words : 

" I do, with the advice of the Council, hereby certify that Harrison Jones, 
aged 30 years, late a private in the militia of the county of Cumberland, ap- 
pears to have been disabled in such a manner while in the service of the United 
States as to entitle him to the sum of fifteen pounds yearly, which allowance 
is accordingly made him, to commence from the first day of January, 1786. 

"Gi\'EN under my hand, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
at Richmond, this 25th day of January. 1787. 

EDMONn R.J^NDOLPH. 
'* T. Merewither." 

Harrison Jones m. Ann Ligon, b. 24 June, 1765 — d. 30 June, 
1842. 

21) GEN. Their 8 children were : 

Thomas L., b. i May, 1783. Weldon. b. 25 Dec, 1790. 
Elizabeth, b. 16 Nov.. 1785. Richard, b. 29 June, 1793. 
John Peyton, b. i May. 1787. Harrison, b. 15 July, 1795. 
Daniel, b. 27 Mar., 1789. William S., b. 27 June, 1803. 

John Peyton's son volunteered for the Mexican war, and d. 
in the service. His daughter, Catherine, m. Jacob Thompson, 
many years in Congress, and Secretary of the Interior, 1857 to 
1861. 

Richard, graduated with first honors Athens College, 
1S12; was sergeant-major Colonel Floyd's regiment, 1812 to 
1814; m. 5 May, 181 8, Lucy W., dau. Governor Peter Early, of 
Georgia, b. 18 Oct., 1799; d. 31 Oct., 1869. He d. 3 Feb, 1883. 

3D GEN. Their children were : 

Peter Early, b. 15 Feb, Edwin Peyton, b. 4 Mar., 1S24. 

1819. Richard Theodore, b. 15 Aug., 
Thomas Harrison, b. 17 1825. 

Sept., 1820. Lucy Early, b. 31 Jan., 1827. 

Ann Early, b. 26 July, Danielia, 1' 20 Aug., 1841. 

1822. 



23 

Peter, Ann, Edwin, Richard and Lucy d. young. Thomas 
Harrison d. Mar. 25, 1889; he was a prince of courage, chivalry, 
generosity and love. 

Daniella m Joseph Wheeler, No 3. 

4TH (itN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr, No. 4. b. 
23 Mar., 1872. (See Wheeler and Early genealogy.) 



WHEELER— EARLY. 

Thomas Early and his wife, Elizabeth, emigrated from 
county Donegal, Ireland, and settled in Virginia. Elizabeth d. 
July 6, 17 16. 

2D GEN. Their son, Jeremiah, b. Dec. 9, 1705; bapt. 
Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., 1705; m. Elizabeth Bu- 
ford, Oct., 1728, and became a man of great wealth. The distin- 
guished General Jubal A. Early, and the eminent Bishop John 
Early, were among his direct descendants. 

3D GEN. His children were : 



Jeremiah, 2, 


Jubal, 


Joseph, 


Sarah, 


James, 


Jacob, 


Joel, 


Ann, 


Jonathan, 


Joab, 


Joshua, 


Hannah 


Jacobus, 


John, 







Jeremiah 2d m. i, Sarah ; m. 2. Mary Stith, in Bedford 

Co, Dec. 23, 1773; he d. 1779. Among his eleven children was 
Jubal, who m. Mary Cheatham, of Amelia Co., and settled in 
Franklin Co. (Jubal's son, Joab, m. Ruth Hairston, and their 
son was the distinguished General Jubal A. Early.) 

Jacob m. Elizabeth Roberson, in Bedford Co., Mar. iS, 1767, 

John m. I, Theodoria White (dau. John White, son of Con- 
yan White, of Leicestershire, England), shed. 1817: m. 2, Ann 
Wisdom, of King and Queen Co. He had si.\ children, had 
property in Orange Co., Virginia, d. 1774. 

Joshua m. Mary Leftwich, in Bedford Co., and had children. 

Joseph m. Jane : lived in Madison Co. 

Sarah m. William Kistley, Sr., 'of Culpepper Co., and had 
five children. He moved to Madison Co , \'irginia, Nov. 2;^, 

1795- 



29 

Ann m. Rogers. 

Hannah m. Scott. 

Joel, youngest son, b. in Madison Co., Va.; m. Lucy Smith, 
in Orange Co., Va.; was Member of the Virginia Convention in 
1788, which ratified the Constitution; moved to Wilkes county 
(now Green county), Georgia, in 1795. He was prominent both 
socially and politically and a leader in all political undertakings 
of importance. 

4TH GEN. His children, born in Old Culpepper Co., were : 

Peter, m. Ann Smith. 

Clement, m. Miss Terrill, d. s. p. 

Eliezer, m. Jane Sturgis, d. s. p. 

Alexander, unmarried. 

Jeremiah, m. 3 times. 

Joel, m. d. s. p. 

Mary, m. Geo. Watkins, 1800. 

Lucy m. Charles, son of Gov. Matthews, of Georgia. 
Peter b. in Madison county, Va., June 20, 1773; graduated 
at Princeton College, 1792; m. a sister of General Thomas A. 
Smith (a distinguished officer of the U. S. army, in whose honor 
Fort Smith, Arkansas, was named) ; she was also a sister of John 
T. Smith, known in history as the famous "John Smith T." 

Peter Early commenced practising law in Georgia in 1795; 
represented Georgia in the 7th, 8th and 9th Congresses; was 
member of the Judiciary Committee which reported articles of 
impeachment against Judge Chase — the articles being prepared 
by Mr. Early; was afterward Judge of the Supreme Court, and 
was also a very distinguished Governor of Georgia; d. Aug. 15, 
1817. 

5TH GEN. Their dau., Lucy Early, m. Richard Jones, who 
was born in Virginia, graduated at Athens College in 1S12, and 
served in the War of 181 2. 

The father of Richard Jones was a soldier in the Virginia 
forces in the Revolutionary War, and had his leg shot off at 
Guilford Court House. Richard Jones' eldest brother, Peyton 
Jones, of Mississippi, was the father of Mrs. Jacob Thompson. 
Her husband, Jacob Thompson, represented Mississippi in Con- 
gress for many years, and was Secretary of the Interior under 
Buchanan. 



6th gen. Daniella Jones, the dau. of Richard Jones and 

Lucy Early, b. Aug. 2c, 1S41; m. Joseph Wheeler, No. 3. 

7TH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., Xo. 4. b .^3 
Mar., 1872; Captain of Artillery Corps, U.S. Army; was distin- 
guished in battles of Spanish war in Cuba, and was a major and 
distinguished in many battles in the Philippines. 

Thomas Harrison Wheeler, their 2d son, b. Mar. 7, 1S81, was 
a Cadet in the service of the United States, at the Xaval Acad- 
emy, and served on the cruiser Columbia, in the Santiago cam- 
paign — May, June and July, 1898; was afterward on the staff 
of Major-General Wheeler, at Montauk Point, and on Sept. 7th 
was drowned in an effort to rescue a companion. 

Annie Early Wheeler, one of their daughters, was a Red 
Cross volunteer nurse, with Miss Clara Barton,, in the Santiago 
campaign, in Cuba, July and August, 1898. 

When General Wheeler was at Montauk Point, in command 
of 30,000 soldiers, including the fever-stricken army just re- 
turned from Cuba, there was such sore need for nurses for the 
10,000 sick men, that the General's other three daughters, Lucy, 
Julia and Carrie Wheeler, gladly gave their services and labored 
by day and sometimes by night, in the camp hospitals, where 
the soldiers who were sick with contagious diseases or had been 
exposed to such maladies were quarantined and detained. 
While all three were so fortunate as to escape contagion, other 
lady nurses became prostrated with disease; and Miss Walworth, 
who worked with them, contracted typhoid fever and died. 



WHEELER— EARLY— SMITH. 

Nicholas Smith was a citizen of Gloucester county, 
Va., in 1697. In 1714 he conveyed to his son land in Essex 
county. 

2D GEN. His son was Captain Nicholas Smith, No. ::, 
who was a Justice in Essex county, \'a., between 1720 and 1730; 
sheriff and collector in 1730; vestryman in 1739. 

3D GEN. His sons were : 

Francis. Nicholas. 



31 

Colonel Francis Smith was vestryman and Justice in 1740; 
major of horse in 1753, and afterwards colonel; member of the 
House of Burgesses, 1752-5S. He m. about 1729 Lucy Merri- 
weather; m. 2, about i-j4-j-4^., Anne Adams, dau. of Ebenezer 
Adams;- gentleman, of New Kent county, Va. She d. 1775; he 
d. 1762. 

4TH GEX. Their children were : 

Francis, No. 2, and others. 

Francis, No. 2, b. about 1749; d. 1814. He lived in Bed- 
ford county, \'a., in 1771; moved to Georgia, where he became a 
large property owner; m. Lucy Wilkinson; she d. 1832. 

5TH GEN. Their children were : 

Francis. Thomas Adams Smith, Brig.- 

John Smith "T," Gen., U. S. Army, 1812. 

a noted duellist. Anne Adams. 
Ebenezer. Reuben, ist Lieut. Artillery, 

William Wilkinson. U. S. Army. 

Anne Adams, b. 1783; d. 1823. She m. in 1797, Peter 
Early. 

6th gen. Their dau., Lucy, b. 1799; d. 1869; m., in 1818, 
Richard Jones of Va. 

7TH GEN. Their dau., Dan ieila, rn. Joseph Wheeler, No. 3. 

8th gen. Their son, Josepil Wheeler, Jr., No. 4, b. 
23 Mar., 1872. (See Wheeler gen.) 

WHEELER— EARLY— ADAMS. 

Richard Adams, b. Essex county, England; m. Anne 
; d. about 1727; she d. after 1734. 



2D GEN. Their son, Ebenezer, gent., came to Virginia 
before 1714; was member of the House of Burgesses, 1718; d. 
1735. He m. Tabitha, dau. of Richard Cocke ''the younger, of 
Bremo." 

3D GEN. Their children were : 

Richard, member of House of Burgesses. 
Thomas, Member of old Congress, 1778-1780.* 

» This Thomas Adams, together with Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfooc Lee, 
signed the articles of Confederation of 1788. for Virginia. 




* 52 

Anne, b. about 1731; d. 1775. 
Anne m. Col. Francis Smith. 

4TH GEN. Their son was Francis Smith. No. 2, who m. 
Lucy Wilkinson. 

5TH GEN. Their dau., Anne AdamS Smith, m. Gov. 
Peter Early. 

6rH GF.N. Their dau., Lucy Early, m Richard Jones. 

7TH GEN. Their dau., Daniella Jones, m. Joseph Wheeler 
No. 3. 

8th GEN. Their son, Joseph, Jr., No. 4, b. 1S72. (See 
Wheeler genealogy.) 



WHEELER— EARLY— EDLOE. 

Matthew Edloe (or Edlow) came to Virginia in the 
Neptune, in i6iS; was member of the House of Burgesses in 
1629; m. Alice ; d. 1637. 

2D GEN. Their son, Lieut. -Col. Matthew Edloe, was 
member of House of Burgesses, 1658-59. for James City county. 
He m. Tabitha , and d. 1668; she d. 1670. 

3D GEN. Their children were : 

John. Tabitha. 

Tabitha m., 1670, Col. Thomas Bowler, land-holder and 
member of the Council; he d. 1679. 

4TH GEN. Their dau., Anne, b. 23 Jan.. 1675; d. 24 April, 
1705; m. Richard Cocke. Her tomb, which still remains at 
Bremo, Henrico Co., bears the following inscription: 

Here lieih interred ihe body of 

A .N .\ E , 

the wife of Richard Cocke the Younger 

of Bremo, in this County, 

and daughter of Thomas Bowler, 

late of the County of Rappahannock. 

She was born the 23d day of January, 1675, 

and departed this life 

the 24th day of .\pril, 1705, 

Aged 30 * * * 3 months, i day. 



■J 

1? * 



33 
5TH GEN. Their dau., Tabitha, m- Ebenezer Adams. 
6th gen. Their dau , Anne, m. Col. Francis Smith. 

7TH GEN. Their son, Francis Smith, No. 2, m. Lucy Wil- 
kinson. 

8th gen. Their dau., Anne Adams Smith, m. Gov. 
Peter Early. 

9TH gen. Their dau., Lucy Early, m. Richard Jones. 
lOTH gen. Their dau., Daniella Jones, m. Joseph Wheel- 
er, No. 3. 

iiTH GEN. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, Jr., No. 4, b. 
23 Mar., 1872. (See W^heeler gen.) 

WHEELER— EARLY— COCKE. 

Richard Cocke b. 1600; d. 1665: was member of House 
of Burgesses for Henrico county, Va., 1644 and 1654. 

2D GEN. His son, Richard Cocke, No. 4, b. 1639; d. 1706; 
Justice in 1678; m. Elizabeth . 

3D GEN. His son, Richard Cocke, No. 3, known as "the 
younger of Bremo," b. 1672; d. 1720: m. Anne Bowler. 

4TH GEN. Their dau., Tabitha, m. Ebenezer Adams. 

5TH GEN. Their dau., Anne, m. Col. Francis Smith. 

6th GEN. Their son, Francis Smith, No. 2, m. Lucy Wil- 
kinson. 

7TH GEN. Their dau., Anne Adams, m. Gov. Peter Early. 

8th GEN. Their dau., Lucy, m. Richard Jones of Vir- 
ginia. 

9TH GEN. Their dau., Daniella, m. Joseph Wheeler, No. 3. 

ioth gen. Their son, Joseph Wheeler, No. 4, b. 23 
Mar., 1872. (See Wheeler gen.) 

Note. — For information in regard to the Smith, Adams, Edloe and Cocke 
families of Virginia, see; Petsworth Vestry Book; Essex Records: Meade, vol. 
i, pp. 393, 405; Va. Mag. Hist, and Biog., iii, p. 192; Gazette; IVill-es Co., Ga. 
Records; Virginia Hist. Register; St. Peters Parish Register, New Kent Co., 
Va. ; Virginia Land Office Records, i, 435; Hotten, pp. 109, 201; Heming, i, pp. 
38, 506; Gen. Court Record, Calender Va. State Paper i, 4, vi, p. 431. 

WHEL. GEN. — 3. 



if 



34 



To Our Dear Children : 

Your father and mother arranged and printed the foregoing, 
hoping it may be not only of interest, but profitable to you. It 
will, at least, be a constant reminder that every act of yours 
will, in a measure, attach to all of your name and race. 

In arranging our family genealogical tables, we have rejected 
and eliminated much data which runs back many centuries, be- 
cause we cannot find that its verity is sustained by positive 
evidence, although eminent genealogists insist that it is clearly 
proven by circumstantial evidence; but we have preferred, in 
all the foregoing, to confine ourselves to that which is estab- 
lished by positive, unquestioned evidence and authentic records. 
The data regarding the Hoo, Newdigate, and Early families, 
which we cite later on, is only given to assist in further re- 
search. 

When a little boy, your father went through old graveyards 
in New England, with his aunt Mary, and scraped away the 
moss from very old tombstones while she wrote down the in- 
scriptions. A few years ago he procured copies of these in- 
scriptions and other data in the family archives, and of late 
found much of the same character in the recently published 
histories of New England towns and New England families. 

We have no positive information regarding your Wheeler 
ancestors, prior to their coming to this country. Some of our 
name have gathered information which they insist connects our 
family with the Wheelers who were distinguished in the English 
navy, about 1640 to 1690; but with the records we have, we are 
unable to state positively about this. 

The Hon. John H. Wheeler, of North Carolina, conducted a 
correspondence with your grandfather, Joseph Wheeler, of Au- 
gusta, Ga., in whirh he contended that our family were the 
same as that of Sir Francis Wheeler. 



35 

His work, ]V heelers Reminiscences of North Caro/iria, contain'^ 
a sketch written by Hon. Joseph Fowler, formerly a United 
States Senator, which says, (p. i) : 

"Among the early citizens of the village of Murfreesboro was John 
Wheeler. He was of an ancient family, long seated around New York. 
Under a grant of land from Charles II, Joseph Wheeler emigrated from Eng- 
land, and settled in Newark, New Jersey. Like William Penn, he was the 
son of a gallant naval officer. Sir Francis Wheeler, an English Admiral, was 
his father, and the grant of land from the crown was in reward for faithful 
services." 

Similarity in given names and, in some instances, remarkable 
personal resemblance tend to sustain Mr. John H. Wheeler's con- 
tention; but investigation leads us to believe that if he is cor- 
rect, our connection with this family must have antedated Moses 
Wheeler's arrival in this country. 

Colonel Jerome Byron Wheeler, of New York, obtained 
much data regarding the Wheelers of England, including a long 
line of noblemen of that name; but the evidence presented does 
not with certaintv connect them with the Wheelers of this 
country. 

IVhee/er and U'w re/i Families, by Henry Warren Wheeler, 
1892, says (p. 9) : 

"The Wheeler family is of English origin; but no attempt is herein made 
to give any account of the English family beyond the simple statement that, 
at least, some of its members belonged to the aristocracy — it being a matter of 
record that during the reign of Charles II, (1660-1685), Sir Charles Wheeler 
was appointed 'Captain General of the Caribee Islands,' and that in 1693 the 
English Fleet, under command of Sir Francis Wheeler, put in to Boston to 
recruit. Mr. Orcutt, the historian of Stratford, Conn., says that Wheelers 
were in and around London four hundred years." 

It is quite true, as stated by Mr. Orcutt, that the Wheelers 
were in and about London from a very early date. They were 
well esteemed, honest, industrious people, and all of their de- 
scendants of this country have certainly sustained that charac- 
ter. The evidence is, however, quite clear that your Hoo and 
Newdigate ancestors enjoyed a long line of noble lineage. 

You will observe that these incomplete records give authen- 
tic information of over thirty of your ancestors who served 
their country with credit and gallantry in battle or with dis- 
tinction in civil positions — and frequently in both capacities, 



36 

therefore, the record of anyone of these thirty ancestors would 
enable you to become a member of the Ancient Order of Colo- 
nial Dames or any similar organization. 

We regret to be unable at this time to give you more infor- 
mation regarding the ancestry of Harrison Jones, your mother's 
paternal grandfather His character — both as a citizen and as a 
soldier of the Revolution — and the high character and remarka- 
ble mental and physical attributes of his seven sons, lead us to 
believe that their ancestors were of the same high order. 

As before stated, we have in the foregoing rejected all data 
which was not established by positive evidence; but, for the 
purpose of assisting any further investigations, we add some 
data regarding the Xewdigate family, the Hoo family, and the 
Early family. The chart regarding the Hoo or de Hoo and the 
Newgate or Newdigate families is reprinted from Salisbury, the 
only change being to add in our direct line the descendants of 
Joseph and Lydia Jackson Fuller. 

It appears from Salisbury's work that Capt Townshend, 
Rev. Wm. Grigson and Colonel Joseph L. Chester obtained 
very strong evidence that Robert Hoo, 2d, who m. Beatri.x and 
d. in 1310, was the 6th gen. from Sir Robert Hoo, who d. 1000. 

It is stated by Salisbury, and shown by the Newdigate and 
Hoo family chart, that Robert and Beatrix had at least three 
sons, including Sir Robert Hoo (7th gen.), who m. Hawyse, and 
d. 1340; also William, Archdeacon of Bury. After further re- 
search, Salisbury concludes (page 499) that : 

"' John off Hoo' descended from Robert Hoo and Beatrix de Andeville, 
probably through Sir Robert, perhaps through his son, Sir Thomas, or even 
through his grandson. Sir William. In any case, 'John off Hoo' had possession 
of the family manor of Hoo, in Hessett, and no doubt by inheritance." 

In his later chart of combined descents, Salisbury holds that 
John off Hoo was a son of Sir William Hoo, or possibly his 
grandson. This uncertainty makes it necessary to reject all 
data anterior to that referring to John off Hoo, who married 
Katherine Tylly, and died 14S5. We do this notwithstanding 
the research by Capt. C. H. Townshend and Rev. William Grig- 
son, who assert that they regard it as proven that ihe line is 
unbroken from Sir Robert Hoo, who died 1000, and that John 
off de Hoo, who died 14S5, is the great-great-grandson of Rob- 
ert de Hoo, who died 13 10. 



Salisbury, in his I'amily Histories ani Genealogies, page 505, 
vol. i, part 2, appears to arrive at the same conclusion. He 
says : 

" According to our theory of the ancestry of Joane Hoo, wife of Phillipe 
Newegate and mother of John Newdigate of Boston, while she did not receive 
any of this landed property, she inherited from her father, Walter Hoo, a de- 
scent from the ancient family of Hoo of Bedfordshire, with ancient and noble 
descents on the female side. He would have had a right to bear the arms 
of the Bedfordshire Hoos : Quarterly Sa. and Arg. ; and Edmondson gives 
these arms, slightly varied, as belonging to the Suffolk branch : Quarterly Sa. 
and Arg., a bend Or. We have, therefore, accepted the latter as the arms of 
our Hoos, as we can learn of no other Hoo family in Suffolk. 

Page 506 : 

" In tracing the lines of our Newdigates and Hoos, we had not expected 
to make this minute search in their ancient records, but have been led on by 
the genealogical and historical interest which we have found attached to them. 
It is seldom that any ancestry but that of the chief line of a family can be 
traced so far back in England. In this search we have gained much informa- 
tion concerning the English laws and customs affecting land tenure, and the 
modes of life of proprietors and tenants for several centuries, reaching back 
to the Middle Ages." 

Salisbury also says that Sir Robert de Hoo, who married 
Hawyse and died 1340, had a son, Sir Thomas, Knt., who mar- 
ried Isabel St. Leger, and died 1380. Their son, Sir William de 
Hoo, Knt., died 1410, married Alice St. Omer ; and their son, 
Sir Thomas de Hoo, Knt., who died 1420, married Eleanor Fel- 
ton, had a son, Thomas Lord de Hoo, Knt., died 1455, married 
Elizabeth Wychingham, and their daughter, Anne, married 
Geoffrey Boleyn. Salisbury says they were ancestors of Ann 
Boleyn and Queen Elizabeth, Admiral Lord Nelson and Earl 
of Kimberley, Lord Wodehouse; and if that is correct, these 
distinguished persons were cousins of Joane de Hoo, who mar- 
ried Philip Newdigate, and also distant cousins of all the de- 
scendants of Joane de Hoo. The verity of this is also shown by 
the de Hoo family chart in Salisbury's genealogies. 

The Early family in Ireland insist that their records and 
other historic data proves that Jeremiah Early, bapt. 1705, was 
in direct descent from the most ancient Irish families. 

Information upon this subject is also found in the Annals of 
the Four Masters, an authentic work printed in 1631, and com- 
piled from ancient Gaelic manuscript. 



Some interesting data upon this question has been briefly 
collated by Mr. Samuel Stockwell Early, and published by Mr. 
Robert Stockwell Hatcher. 

Jeremiah Early, b. 9 Dec, 1705, was the great-great-great- 
grandfather of Joseph Wheeler, 4th. The following is given 
only to assist further research: 

WHEELER— EARLY. 

Carbri Lifichar, an ancient king of Ireland, was b. about A.D. 

ft 't " 
— ■ 

His son, Eochaidh Dubhlein, 1>. 260. 
His sons were : 

Colki Uais (meaning " the noble"). 
Colla Meann (meaning ''the famous"). 

Colla da Crioch (meaning "of the two territories," refer- 
ring to his possessions in both Scotland and Ireland). 
The three Collas won the battle of Dublcomar, and thus 
restored their family to power ; and Colla Uais ascended the 
throne of Ireland in 322. In 326 he was deposed; but the three 
Collas, with an army of 21,000 men, after many battles, con- 
quered the king of L'lster (see Keating's History of Ireland), 
and erected a new principality. 

Colla da Crioch became prince of Criomthain, and his pos- 
terity maintained their authority over it as titular kings of 
Ulster, until their submission to England, about the year 1300. 
His descendants were: 

Fiachra-casan. Diceilidh. 

Feidlimidh. I'ltan. 

Tuathal. Cuanach. 

Colcan. Inrachta. 

Aongus. Donoch. 

Maolmocheirgh, founder of the O'Maolmocheirghes. 
The family of O'Maolrnocheirghe was conspicuous in eccle- 
siastical capacities. Among them were Muircheartach O'Maol- 
mochcirghe, a holy bishop of Brefney, who d. A. 1). i 149; Braen 
O'Maolmocheirghe, a noted abbot of the monastery of Kells, d. 
1277; and Aodli ()'?^I. Coarb, of the Abbey of Drumlane, who 
was drowned A. 1). 1:12. 



39 

Matthew O'M , a leading chief in the county of Donegal, 

d. in 1226; and Cathal, "a constantly spending and lastingly 
affluent gentleman," d. in 1536. 

During the reigns of the Henrys and the Edwards, this name 
was anglicised to Early. It is claimed by eminent genealogists 
that the above are ancestors of your mother's great-grandfather, 
Jeremiah Early, b. in Virginia, 9 Dec, 1705. 



WHEELER— NEWGATE or NEWDIGATE. 

Salisbury, vol. i, part 2, pp. 474 and 475, says : 

" Beginning our notes upon lohn Xewdigate and his family, we will first 
refer to the different spellings of his name. His grandfather and father, in 
their Wills, called themselves respectively, 'Robert Kewegate' and 'Phillip 
Newegate,' as if omitting only the letter ' d ' from the complete spelling of the 
name. In his own Will he calls himself 'Newgate.' Savage writes his name 
'Newgate or Newdigate.' In his sale of land in Tymworth, four miles N. by 
E. from Bury St. Edmund's, County, Suffolk, Engl., in 1639-40, he is called 
'Newdigate alias Newgate.' In the records of the old Lynde Bible of 
1595, which belonged to his grandson, Mr. Simon Linde (see Lynde, Salis- 
bury p. ) he is called 'Mr. John Newdigate.' His son Nathaniel, in 

his Will, calls himself 'Nathaniel Newdigate, als. Newgate of London.' 
?li» great-grandson, the second Chief Justice, Benjamin Lynde, in the old 
Lynde Pedigree, calls him ' Mr. John Newdigate.' On searching for his his- 
tory we find that the family to which he belonged in England had called itself 
for many generations ' Newgate als. Newdigate.' Will of Mr. John Newdi- 
gate shows us that the home of his immediate family was at Great Horning- 
sheath, in Suffolk, where several preceding generations had lived, about forty 
miles from Holkham, in the adjoining county of Norfolk, where the Newgates 
als. Newdigates had been long established." 

Page 478 : 

" In regard to John Newdigate and his ancestry, we give the following 
facts from the Lynde family papers and Boston public records, and from 
copies of Wills and records obtained by Capt. Townshend in County Suffolk, 
England : 

" Mr. John Newdigate, who was of 'Boston in New England in 1632,' as 
Savage says (vol. 3, pp. 272-3), and was made a Freeman there in 1634-35; 
was born, according to a record in the old Lynde pedigree by the second Chief 
Justice Benjamin Lynde, ' in South''' near ye [London] Bridge.' An early Will 
of his, however, dated in 163S, when he was about to return to England on a 
visit, gives to his eldest son, John Newgate, 'all those my lands and Tene 
ments lying in Horningshcath, in the County of Suffolk in England, our 
native Country, To have and to hold the same to him and his heirs forever.'" 



40 
Page 479 : 

"This, taken together with the reference to Newdigate arms in the old 
Lynde pedigree, which we have noticed in speaking of that document, marks 
the family of John Newdigate as belonging to the landed gentry of England, 
among whom the Xewdigates have held a distinguished position from time 
immemorial down to this present day." 

" The first direct ancestor of this line whom we can distinctly trace is Wil- 
liam Newgate, born before 1500, of Ickworth (two and one-half miles S. \V. 
from Bury St. Edmund's), whose wife was Katherine, and whose Will desig- 
nates his children as ' Robert- the Elder," Richard- ' Robert- the Younger' and 
Elizabeth,- all 'under 16 the 23th of Sept., 152S.' Elizabeth married John 
ijande i.i 1553. ' Robert the Elder," so called in his Will, 'of* Great Mornings- 
heath, CO. Suffolk," married Thomasine , who was buried Dec. 5. 1599." 

Page 4S0 : 

" Robert and Thomasine had children; Phillipe.* Robert.^ who married 
Elizabeth Buckinham,*'' Feb. 21, 1536; and Anne.^ who married Henry 
Frost, Oct. 4, 1601. The eldest son of Robert and Thomasine, called in his 
(Robert's) Will, dated July 5, 1636, ' Phillipe Newegate of the towne of Great 
Horningsheaih, County Suffolk," married Dec. 13, 1575, Joane, daughter of 
Gu-llher (Walter) Hoo of Hessett, co. of Suffolk, a large land holder and 
owner in Hessett and Rougham (see Hoo). He was buried August i, 1636. 
She was buried Oct. 10, 1620. Their children, as we learn from records and 
Wills, were: i, John^ — barn at Southwark, near London Bridge, about isSo — 
our ancestor, who went to New England; 2 .\ndrey* (or Adrean), i. e., Andri- 
anne, baptized Feb. 25, 15S1; 3, John^, baptized Nov. 24, 1533, 'maulster'of 
Bury St. Edmund's, co. Suffolk, whose wife was Sarah, and who left property 
to his brothers, John in New England, and Joseph.'' His widow married 
Thomas Frost. 

".Abstract of Will of John Newgate, of Bury St. Edmund's, County Suf- 
folk, England, dated Oct. 12, 1642 : 

"'To Sarah, loving wife, the use of house, lands and other property in 
Bury St. Edmund's, for life. Then to brother Joseph Newgate for life — After 
decease of said Joseph, Then the same to be and remain unto my brother, 
John Newgate, now living resident in the parts beyond the seas called New 
England, and to his heirs forever. 

JOHN NEWGATE."' 

Salisbury reproduces many" records regarding John Newdi- 
gate, and on page 481, says : 

"These facts show us definitely his social position, both in England and in 
this country. In England he was a landed proprietor, a descendant of and 
connected with heraldic families." 

"Mr. Newdigate held a position of dignity and influence in this country, 
and was one of the largest property owners in and near Boston [p. 482.] He 
came to Boston in 1632. He had been living in St. Olave Parish, near London 
Bridge, where the records of his family are found. His house in Boston was 



41 

on the wesl slope of Beacon Hill, a little East of Cambridge Street. His chil- 
dren married into some of the best families of Boston, and his descendants — 
Lyndes, Winthrops, Bowdoins, Olivers, Walters, Temples, Ervings, Valentines, 
Hulls. Fullers. Clarkes, I'ages, McLellans, Hickmans. Otises, Reads, and 
other noted lines — have maintained their hereditary dignity in Massachusetts, 
and a branch of the Lyndes has maintained it in Connecticut." 

" In his new home in New England, Mr. Newdigate became prominent in 
civil affairs and liberal with his large wealth." 

The dignity of the family has been ably maintained by the 
McKessons, Camps, Herricks, Kirklands, Vennards, Ferrys, Ire- 
lands, Williams, and the families of Sterling Smith, and Baxter 
and Bruce Brown, a nephew of the philanthropist, Catherine 
Wolf, in New York, and by the Campbells, Kollocks, Montgom- 
erys, Simms and Harrison of Georgia, and the Meads of Vir- 
ginia. The dignity of these ancient Hoo and Newdigate fami- 
lies has also been well maintained by their Wheeler descendants 
in Georgia and Alabama. 

Salisbury continues, page 483 : 

"John Newdigate was born about 1580 and died Sept. 4, 1665. He mar- 
ried Lidia, who died 1620. They had two sons and one daughter, who died in 
infancy. He had another daughter, Elizabeth, bapt. Jan. i, 1617-13, who 
married ist. Rev. John Oliver, first minister of Rumney Marsh (Chelsea, 
Mass.);' and 2d, in 1648, married Edward Jackson, a merchant of Boston. 

"The Will of John Newdigate, dated 25 Nov., 1664, gives [p. 487]: 'To 
son-in-law, Edward Jackson, that married with my daughter Elizabeth,' etc. 
* * * * ' To all living children of daughter Elizabeth by Edward Jackson." 

Page 4S7 and following : 

"Edward Jackson and Simon Lynd were the executors of John Newdi- 
gate's Will. 

"John Newdigate had a son, Nathaniel, by his third marriage, baptized 
.■\pril 24, 1627, married Isabella, daughter of Richard Lewis, and sister of Sir 
John Lewis, Baronet, of Ledston, County York. 

" His Will, proved 22 Sept., 1668, said [p. 489] : ' I give all my Lands, 
Tenements and hereditaments in New England to my sonne, Nathaniell New- 
gate, and his heirs (males) of his Bodie.' 

"Codicil dated 8 Sept., 166S : ';^ioo to be disposed of to such silenced 
Ministers as Doctor Wilkins [brother-in-law of Oliver Cromwell and afterward 
Bishop of Chester. — C.H.T.] and Edmund White shall direct.'" 

And on pages 490-491 : 

"Nathaniell Newdigate mentioned in this Will, was born 1663. He mar- 
ried June 5, 1688, Sarah Lynde. 

" He practised law in Newport. R. I., and lived in a house on the east side 
of Broadway. He died Jan. 31, 1746." 



42 

Salisbury says, p. 491 : 

" No son of Nathaniel Newdigate, Esq., and Sarah Lynde. his wife, sur- 
vived them ; and upon his death the name of the ancient and honorable family 
cf Newdigate became extinct in our branch." 

Professor Salisbury must mean ihat Nathaniel Newdigate 
was the last of his name in this country, as the name still sur- 
vives in England. 

After some search we found the graves of Nathaniel Newdi- 
gate and his wife, Sarah, in the graveyard at Newport. They 
are about 20 paces south of the Perry monument, and are in a 
good state of preservation. 

The great antiquity of the family of Newgate, Newdegate or 
Newdigate — as it was written at different periods — is shown by 
the letters of Sir Edward Newdigate, a Lieut. -General, and 
those of Lieut. -Col. Francis William Newdigate, Coldstream 
Guards, both of the English Army. (See Salisbury, p. 477.) Sir 
Edward states that the family dates from King John, 1214, and 
this is sustained by the Newdigate and Hoo family pedigrees 
which appear in Professor Salisbury's genealogical work, and 
which we republish. 

WHEELER HOO or de HOO. 

Some of the descendants of the Newdigate and the Hoo 
families, through their daughters, are given by Salisbury, page 
482. They also include the families of Wetmore, Wheeler, 
McKesson, Hull, Clark, Camp, and others. 

Salisbury, page 493, says : 

"In regard to the maternal ancestry of John Newdigate, whose father 
Phillipe Newegate of Great Horningsheath married Joane, daughter of Gual- 
iher (Walter) Hoo, of Hessett, Co. Suffolk. The family of Hoo had a Saxon 
origin and was settled in Kent. At the end of the reign of King John they 
were seated in Bedfordshire. 

"In 1292, Robert'^ de Hoo, who married Beatrix, daughter of Alexander 
Earl de Andeville in Normandy, is mentioned as holding lands in Herts, Bedford, 
Cambridge and 0.\ford. His son, Sir Robert' Hoo, married Hawyse, daugh- 
ter of Fulk Lord Fitzwarine. Sir Thomas'* de Hoo, Knt., son of Sir Robert, 
married Isabel, only child of John de St. Leger, Lord of the m.inor of Offley 
St. Leger, Co. Herts, and heiress to large estates in Sussex, Northamptonshire 
and Herts; he died 13S0. Their son. Sir William" de Hoo, Knt., was an import- 
ant man during the reigns of Edward HI, Richard II and Henry IV. He was 



43 

in the king's service al Calais in 1370, and in 1387 was made Captain or Gover- 
nor of the castle of Oye, in Picardy, which office he retained through the 
reign of Richard II, leaving a deputy, in 13S7, when about to proceed to the 
' Holy City of Jerusalem,' to be absent possibly for two years." 

Page 494: 

"There seems good reason for believing that our branch of Hoos de- 
scended from Robert Hoo and Beatrix de Andeville. 

"Sir Thomas'" Moo, Knt., was a son of Sir William, and fought in the 
battle of Agincourt, and distinguished himself on other occasions. His son, 
Thomas, '' was made a Baron, and d. 1455. Hamden calls him 'the noble 
Baron Hoo.' He was raised in 1436 to the 'dignity of Chancellor of France.'^ 
In 144S, in the reign of Henry VI, he 'was elevated to the peerage by the 
title of Baron Hoo of Hoo, county Bedford, and of Hastings, county Sussex.' 
His daughter, .Anne,'^ married Geoffrey Boleyn, and their great-granddaugh- 
ter became the mother of Queen Elizabeth."'* 

Page 496 : 

" lohn off Hoo's wife, whose name was Katherine, appears to have been 
the daughter and heir of Reynold Tylly." His grandson, Sir Walter Hoo, was 
his executor. 

" John off Hoo mentions the property of Reynold Tylly, and also men- 
tions his wife Katharine." 

Page 500 : 

"Walter Hoo, will dated 15S7, bequeaths property to his son-in-law, 
Philipe Newgate, of Horningsheath, his daughter, Joane Newgate, and also to 
his grandson, John Newdigate." 

On pages 495 and 496, Salisbury shows by Wills and docu- 
ments that John off Hoo, who d. 1485, was parallel in descent 
with the children of William,^ and, therefore, would be loth in 
descent from Sir Robert Hoo, who d. icoo, and 4th in descent 
from Robert Hoo, who d. 13 10. 

Salisbury also says, p. 496 : 

"In connection with Sir William' de Hoo of Mulburton, Norfolk, who 
married Alice St. Omer, and died in 1410, is mentioned a Sir Walter de Hoo, 
of the same county, who was no doubt a relative, and was pehraps a younger 
brother. John off Hoo was of a parallel generation with Sir William's chil- 
dren. 

"William* de Hoo had a brother, John de Hoo. 

" Now John off IIoo, whose Wiil was dated Oct. 20, 14S5, was the next 
generation after this John de Hoo, brother of William, and was probably 
named for him." 



44 
Salisbury, p. 49S, says: 

"Our careful search in deeds. Wills, records, pedigrees and historicj 
shows that the Sir Robert Hoc, Knt., who gave a deed of land in Hessett, in 
1293, and granted tenements in Rougham in 1309 (both places being in the dio- 
cese of Norwich), war Sir Robert" de Hoo, Knt. (son of Robert Hoo and Bea- 
trix, daughter of the Earl of Andeville), of the Bedfordshire family, whose 
grandson, Sir William* de Hoo, Knt., was seated at Mulbarton, Norfolk (also 
in the diocese of Norwich),^- where he died in 1410. 

" So many wealthy heiresses had married into the family that there must 
have been much unentailed land to be divided among the younger sons of 
several of the earlier generations; and branches had become established in 
several counties. 

" We find, as we have seen, that in 1312, three years after Sir Robert Hoo 
in person had transactions in Hessett, William de Hoo was Sacristan of the 
monastery and Archdeacon of Bury, and in possession of the manor of Hoo. 
In several places in which the Hoo family established itself, the residence took 
the name of the family, as 'the patrimonial lordship of Hoo in Herts,' and 
Hartford-Hoo in Cambridgeshire; and Sir Thomas Hoo was created a Baron 
in 1443, with the title of 'Baron Hoo of Hoo, in the county of Bedford, and of 
Hastings in the county of Sussex.' These facts give dignity to the title of Hoo, 
and convey the idea that any residence which bore that name was occupied 
by a member of the chief line of the family. We find that Sir Robert de Hoo 
held large estates at Rougham and Hessett, where was a family-seat bearing, 
from early times, the title of Hoo, showing that this was one of the family 
residences. Can we doubt that William de Hoo was of the same family as Sir 
Robert? As far as we can trace the dates, he seems to have been of the same 
generation. Robert Hoo, father of Sir Robert, 'had a son, William, living in 
1388, who must have died s. p. (See "Sussex Archaeological Collections," p. 
131, note). If William de Hoo had been an ecclesiastic, he could not have mar- 
ried (p. 499). The Hoo family influence may be supposed to have obtained 
for him the office of Archdeacon of Bury. His heir would have been a brother 
or nephew. No other son of Robert Hoo is mentioned except Sir Robert, his 
heir. If Archdeacon William de Hoo had no other brother, a son of Sir Robert 
would have been his heir. 

"'John off Hoo' was of an age to be in the same generation as the 
younger sons of Sir William, who was grandson of Sir Robert, and to have 
been Sir Robert's great-grandson. It seems, therefore, safe to suppose that 
'John od Hoo' descended from Robert Hoo and Beatrix de .\ndeville, probably 
through Sir Robert — perhaps through Sir Robert's son, Sir Thomas, or even 
through his grandson. Sir William. In any case, 'John off Hoo' had posses- 
sion of the family manor of Hoo in Hessett, and no doubt by inheritance. It 
is evident that 'John off Hoo" had an estate, maintained a dignity, and showed 
a liberality of means which in those days could have belonged only to a man 
of wealth and good lineage. 

" The Will of Walter'-' Hoo was dated July 26, ijS;, proved July 21, 1539, 
registered at Bury St. Edmund's." 



45 

Page 501-503 : 

" Now we find that our Gualther (Walter) Hoo of Hessett, in his Will 
dated 15S7, leaves to his eldest son, John*'' Hoo, his freeholds in Hessett, 
Brighton and Rougham, etc.. etc., and his copyhold land of the Manor of 
Koiigham Hall, and forbids him to aleniate his property : 'my plaine intent 
bemg to continue my lannds and tenements to the heir male, as my Ancestors 
left yt to me.''" It is evident, therefore, that Walter Hoo was the eldest son, 
and had inherited through eldest sons for generations. The property he be- 
queathed is evidently in great part the same as that bequeathed by the Will of 
'John off Hoo' of Hessett, in 1485, to his son, 'John at Hoc' 

Salisbury also says, p. 503 : 

"Walter lays upon his son, John, the solemn injunctions and conditions 
under which, through many generations, the lands had come down to Walter Hoo 
himself, chargmg him, 'as he will answer before God at the great daie of judg- 
ment, that he break not the true meaninge of this my will nor the entayles in 
the same, my plaine intent being to continue my lannds and tenements to the 
heir male, as my Ancestors left yt to me.' " 

Salisbury has before produced evidence that the land owned 
by Walter Hoo had been owned by his ancestors for at least 
seven generations, and that his grandfather. "John off Hoo," was 
the great-grandson of Robert de Hoo, who married Beatrix, 
and d. 1310. With this and other evidence, Salisbury presents 
and publishes the de Hoo chart, which we reprint to assist 
others in further research. The failure to give the names and 
dates of the 7th, 8th and 9th generations makes its rejection 
by us imperative, and, therefore, we declined, as has been 
shown, to go back beyond "John off Hoo." 

On this subject Salisbury also says, page 502 : 

" We have abstracts of the principal Hoo AVills, recorded at Bury St. Ed- 
mund's, and find no mention of any transmissions of land, except in the line 
we give as that of Walter Hoo. But, as we have seen, we can, with great 
probability, go farther back with our line of Hoos. For the same lands appear 
to have been held, in the same family, for at least four generations previous 
to 'John off Hoo,' who died in 1485, which would make Walter Hoo to have 
been of at least the seventh generation in possession." 

Salisbury's Hoo chart is printed in full as Appendix B 



46 



" Then came Death ; but beyond is Eternal Life." 

After the first edition of this work had gone to press, God 
came with his angels and took away the loving and devoted 
wife and mother. The following is copied from the IVashington 
Post of Friday, May 22, 1896 : 



"Mrs. Wheeler's Finer.\l. 

"THE REM.\INS TEMP0R.\RILV ri.ACED IN 0.\K HILL CEMETERY. 

"Simple but impressive were the funeral services at the residence yester- 
day over the remains of Mrs. Wheeler, wife of Congressman Wheeler, of Ala- 
bama, who died last Tuesday evening [May 19, 1396]. The casket was covered 
with a profusion of exquisite flowers. Rev. Dr. McKay-Smith, of St. John's 
Episcopal Church, was the officiating clergyman. The music was rendered by 
a quartet of male voices from St. John's choir. Among those present were 
many persons prominent in resident and official circles. 

"The active pall-bearers were Lieut. A. S. Fleming, U. S. A., Dr. F. R. 
Kiefer, U. S. A., Mr. Harry Jackson, U. S. N., Mr. Jules Guthridge, Mr. 
Robert Beale, Mr. Charles Thomas, Mr. J. M. Henry and Mr. J. W. Henry. 

"The honorary pall bearers were the Vice-President, the Postmaster- 
General, the Secretary of the Navy, Senators Pugh, Morgan, Mills, Bate and 
Vest, Col. John M. Wilson, U. S. A., and Mr. William D. Cabell. 

" Mrs. Wheeler's remains were temporarily laid at rest at Oak Hill Ceme- 
tery, where they will remain until the family returns to Alabama." 



This loving mother of the children for whom the genealogi- 
cal data was arranged, possessed most remarkable mental en- 
dowments, character and moral force of the very highest type, 
charming beauty and touching tenderness of heart. She was 
brought up amidst the luxury and wealth befitting a queen; her 
slightest wish being as the laws of the Medes and Persians to 
her parents, a brother and an uncle, who loved her with an idol- 
atry as rare as beautiful. 

But this luxurious rearing did not weaken her perfect in- 
stincts of duty, and with a heart filled with christian love she 
unfalteringly took up the burdens which became the lot of 
Southern mothers under the changed conditions which followed 
the war. 



47 

Some writers have said, "Memory is the record of the soul." 
Hers was beautiful ; and all that touched the tablets of her 
memory was there most lastingly impressed. Often she re- 
peated to her children pa«^es and even chapters of prose, and 
almost books of poetry, much of which she had not seen since 
her early youth. 

Her brilliant attainments would have won for her the admi- 
ration of the world, and she would have reigned queen in any 
society, but her tender heart cared only for the love and admi- 
ration of the little kingdom of her home circle; and to her chil- 
dren she was mother, sister, companion and friend. Her in- 
tense, unwavering devotion to her husband and children, made 
their home one of continuous happiness and love. 

The words alluding to their ancestry in this last letter to her 
children, 

" It will, at least, be a constant reminder that every act of yours will, in 
a measure, attach to all of your name and race," 

are emblematical of her teaching and example. The last time 
she wrote her name was to endorse a check to her youngest 
daughter; and just as she was falling into her eternal sleep, she 
asked for her youngest son. These, her last acts, like her every 
thought, were characteristic of her loving and perfect lite. 



48 




T^' 






>M * /fj^U 








4t^.« r\ (^ O 



ts-/ ^ '^ *fe^ 







''^;/->' 




>- ->•. 



APPENDIX A. 



William Hull, b. June 24, 1753; graduated at Yale College; 
studied law, admitted to the bar in 1775 ; a gentleman of the 
highest culture and attainments ; was among the first of the 
Revolutionary patriots who rushed to the defence of our country. 
He was chosen Captain of the first company raised in Derby, 
and went with Colonel Webb's regiment to Cambridge and took 
part in the siege of Boston. He served with great distinction 
as an officer of the line, under Washington, at the siege of 
Boston, and in the battles of Trenton, Princeton and Mon- 
mouth, and assisted Washington in covering the retreat of the 
American forces from the battlefield of Long Island, and in 
crossing them over the East River, from Brooklyn Heights to 
New York. Was Major of 8th Massachusetts in 1777, Lieuten- 
ant-Colonel in 1779, and Assistant Inspector-General under 
Baron Steuben. 

General Washington, in his published letter to Major-Gen. 
Heath, dated Dec. 13, 1799, says: 

" Colonel Hull is an officer of great merit, and whose services have been 
honorable to himself and honorable to his country." 

In the summer of 1780, General Washington solicited him to 
accept a position upon his staff as aid-de-camp, which appoint- 
ment he declined at the earnest request of Major-General Baron 
Steuben, inspector of the army, under whom Hull was then 
serving as inspector-general of the division of Major-General 
Howe. Baron Steuben visited General Washington especially 
on this subject, and stated to both General Washington and 
Colonel Hull that "he [Hull] would be more useful in the office 
of inspector than in any other situation, and hoped such con- 
siderations would influence their decision for him to remain." 



WHTL. GEN. 4. 



50 
hull's victory at morrisania. 
By General Washington's special permission, given in his 
published letter of Jan. 7, 1781, Colonel Hull attacked and de- 
feated the enemy at Morrisania, for which he received the 
thanks of Washington and the Government. The battle was 
fought near the foot of East 130th Street, New York. Major- 
General Heath, in a letter dated Dec. 30, says : 

' The success of this Morrisania enterprise was doubtful in the opinion of 
General Washington, but Colonel Hull, with the troops under his command, 
was successful. With great address and gallantry they forced a narrow pas- 
sage to the enemy, and with the loss of one subaltern, one drummer and ten 
privates killed, one captain, one sergeant and eleven rank and file wounded, 
completely defeated the enemy, and, besides the killed and wounded, took 
upwards of fifty prisoners, cut away the ponton bridges, took a considerable 
quantity of forage, a number of cattle, etc., for which they were thanked in 
public orders." 

General Heath also states twice in the same letter : 

"Colonel Hull sustained a conspicuous character of a brave and good 
officer, and possessed the particular esteem and confidence of General Wash- 
ington." 

Clarke's History, p. 430, gives Captain Francis Tuft's testi- 
mony as follows : 

"I was with General Hull as Sergeant-Major of the 8th Massachusetts 
Regiment at Ticonderoga, and in the same regiment at taking of Burgoyne s 
army, and was with the regiment he commanded in taking Stony Point, and 
was his adjutant. His character for courage and firmness on all these occa- 
sions was unexceptionable; and he was a good military man and was univer- 
sally esteemed by his "brother officers and beloved by his soldiers. ' 

Ibid, 431, Governor J. Brooks, of Massachusetts who (vol. xi, 
p. 265, Washington's Writings) was recommended by Washing- 
ton for Brigadier-General in the army, testified : 

" It fell to General Hull's lot frequently to meet the enemy in combat, and 
in every instance he acquitted himself much to his honour and to the satisfac- 
tion of his superior officers. No officer of his rank stood higher in the estima- 
tion of the army generally than General Hull — not only as a disciplinarian and 
an officer of intelligence, but as a man of great enterprise and gallantry. I 
can add that he possessed, in a high degree, the confidence of General Wash- 
ington." 

Ibid, 432, Major Joseph McCaken testified : 

"There was no officer of General Hull's rank that stood higher in my es- 
timation and, as far as I knew, in the estimation of the army. He was con- 
sidered as a brave and excellent officer." 



51 

Limited space prevents our multiplying the evidence of ad- 
miration of Hull's comrades of the Revolution for his courage 
and soldierly qualities. 

The following official letters written by General Washing- 
ton, give additional evidence that this esteem for Hull was 
fully concurred in by "the father of our country." They are 
all copied from Vols, vi, vii, viii, Sparks' edition of Washing- 
ton's Writings. 

Vol. vi, p. 467 : 

" Headquarters, Morristown, 

16 February, 17S0. 
To Major-General Heath. 

Dear Sir : — 

I am pleased to find that the State of Massachusetts has upon reconsidera- 
tion, given 10 Major Hull his rank. * * * 

I am, etc., 

GEORGE WASHINGTON." 

Vol. vi, p. 538 : 

"Gen. Anthony Wayne in his report to Washington of the 
capture of Stony Point, says : 

' Major Hull's detachment formed the right column.' " 

Ibid, p. 539: 

" It is with the greatest pleasure that I acknowledge to you that I was 
supported in the attack by all the officers and soldiers under my command to 
the utmost of my wishes." 

Vol. vii, p. 356 : 

"New Windsor, 7 January, 17S1. 
To Major General Heath. 
Dear Sir : — 

You will be pleased to observe on the subject of your letter of last night, 
that although I am not very sanguine in my expectations of the success of the 
enterprise proposed, yet I think in our present circumstances, it will be advis- 
able to encourage it. Col. Hull may, therefore, have permission to make the 
attempt in conjunction with the militia; but I would not advise the destruction 
of any houses except the temporary hut built by the refugees. Colonel Hull 
and the militia Colonels should be strongly impressed with the idea that the 
whole success depends absolutely upon the secrecy and rapidity of the move- 



ment. * * * 



I am, sir, etc., 

GEORGE WASHINGTON." 



Note, p. 356 : 

"Col. Hull was now stationed at Pine Bridge, near the lines, and the plan 
referred to was that of an attack upon the refugees of Delancey's Corps at 
Morrisania, in conjunction with a pany of militia under Colonels Drake and 
Crane. The project had been communicated by Col. Hull to Gen. Heath, with 
the request to be favored with his opinion." 

Vol. vii, p. 3S5 : 

"New Windsor, 

January 25, 1781. 
To M.'VJOr-General Heath. 

Dear Sir : — 

I am much obliged to you for the account of the success of the enterprise 
against Morrisania. 

I am, dear sir, etc , 

GEORGE WASHINGTON." 

General Heath commanded the Department and General 
Parsons the District, and therefore, Colonel Hull's report of the 
engagement was, of necessity, forwarded through those officers; 
but Colonel Hull planned, led, and successfully executed the 
enterprise. 

Vol. vii, page 392 : 

"New Windsor, 

31 January, 1781. 
To The President ok Congress. 

Sin- 
Enclosed are two other reports of Brig. -Gen. Parsons and Lieut. -Colonel 
Hull, respecting an enterprise against Delancey's Corps at Westchester, in 
which, with small loss on our side, the barracks of the corps and a large quantity 
of forage were destroyed, 52 prisoners and considerable number of horses and 
cattle were brought off and the bridge across Hearlam River under one of the 
enemy's redoubts burned. The conduct of the officers and men employed on 
the occassion is entitled to the highest praise. The position of the Corps, two 
or three miles within some of the enemy's redoubts, required address and 
courage in the execution of the enterprise. 

I am, dear sir, etc., 

GEORGE W\'\SHINGTON." 

Note, page 393 : 

"The advance Corps by which the attack was made at Morrisania was 
under the immediate direction of Col. Hull. With three companies of Conti- 
nental troops and a party of volunteer horsemen, he proceeded on the night of 



53 

the 2ist of January to Morrisania, having taken care to guard his flanks by sta- 
tioning the guard at suitable points. He came to a small creek near the bar- 
racks occupied by Delancey's Corps, over which he expected to find a bridge. 
In this, however, he was disappointed; and the recent rains had swelled the 
water so much that it was difficult to pass over, particularly as the creek was 
lilled with floating ice. Not to be baffled at this stage of their enterprise, the 
infantry mounted behind their horsemen, and within 15 minutes about 70 were 
conveyed across who, with the cavalry, were thought sufficient for the attack. 
The rest remained to protect the pass. The noise produced in crossing had 
alarmed the post and prevented the surprise from being as complete as was 
intended; but the assault was so rapid and vigorous that it was entirely suc- 
cessful in its main object. All the barracks and a large quantity of forage was 
destroyed and 54 of Delancey's Corps were made prisoners. The party re- 
tired in good order, though much harrassed by the enemy, and joined the main 
body under Gen. Parson, near East Chester, having brought away al! the 
prisoners, many cattle and horses." 

Vol. vii, page 415 : 

" New Windsor, 

17 February, 1781. 
To The President of Congress. 
Sir:— 

I shall not fail to communicate to Maj.-Gen. Parsons, and also to the 
men who are under his command, the very flattering notice which Congress 
has been pleased to take of the e.xpedition to Morrisania. * * * 

I have the honor to be, etc., 

GEORGE WASHINGTON." 

Vol. viii, pages 93 and 94 : 

He.\DQI ARTERS, PeEKSKII.L, N. V., 

2 July, 1 73 1. 
To Count de Rochambeau. 

Sir:— 

I have this morning received your Excellency's favor of last evening. 
* * * Col. Hull, an active and very intelligent officer, will have the honor 
of delivering this to your Excellency. He is charged with my instructions to 
the Duke de Lauzum; and, being perfectly acquainted with our intended move- 
ments and with the scene of operations, he will give all the aid in his power 
to the Duke. The same gentleman will be able to reply to any queries your 
Excellency shall be pleased to put to him. 

With perfect esteem and regard, 

I am, etc., 

GEORGE WASHINGTON." 

Colonel Hull also fought under General Lee at White Plains; 
under General St. Clair at Ticonderoga; under General Gates 



54 

in the battles of the 19th September and the ist and 3d Octo- 
ber; and in the capture of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga. He 
also commanded and led his regiment, 400 strong, in the assault 
and capture of Stony Point. For his great gallantry in that 
battle he received the particular thanks of General Wayne, 
General Washington and the Government. He continued in 
active service during the entire war of the Revolulution. 

PROMOTED BY WASHINGTON FOR GALLANTRY IN BATTLE. 

For gallantry at Dorchester Heights. White Plains and 
Trenton, General Washington promoted him to the rank of 
major, and his heroic conduct at Princeton, Ticonderoga, Bemis 
Heights, Stillwater, Saratoga, Monmouth and Stony Point won 
him promotion to lieutenant-colonel. Lossing, \'ol. i. p. 55, in 
his account of the battle of Stillwater, thus speaks of him: 

"More than orre-half of an American detachment, under Major Hull, 
consisting of 200 men, was killed or wounded." 

Hull's portrait is in Trumbull's famous life-size painting of 
the "Surrender of Burgoyne," now in the rotunda of the U. S. 
Capitol. 

He was specially selected to command Washington's escort 
when he entered New York the day the British left it. At the 
close of the war he was retained as lieutenant-colonel of the 
one regiment continued in service, and was stationed at West 
Point, 1783-84. 

ESTEEMED AND ADMIRED BY WASHINGTON AT AGE OF 24. 

It must be observed that Colonel Hull was a young man but 
twenty-four or twenty-five years of age when, by his courage 
and skill in battle, he had won such unqualified approval and 
commendation of General George Washington. During the 
War of 1S12 twenty-five generals were appointed, some of them 
having served during the Revolution; but the thirteen volumes 
of the writings of Washington, as published by Sparks, from 
which we have quoted, show that Colonel, afterwards General 
Hull was the only one of these officers whose conduct in the 
Revolution was commended by Washington. The only mention 
of Dearborn in these writings was with reference to his ex- 
change when a prisoner ; Washington's allusions to General 
Wilkinson were made lo and i6 years after the Revolution had 



55 

ended; and the names of the others do not appear in the pub- 
lished writings of " the father of our country." It is also im- 
portant to note that during the Revolution, Colonel, afterward 
General Hull was distinguished in very many more battles than 
any other officer who was in the service in 1812, and further, 
that he was pre-eminently distinguished in every one of the 14 
battles of the Revolution in which he was engaged or in which 
he commanded. 

In 1786 he resigned from the service and settled in Newton. 
In .Tanuary, 1787, he acted as Aide to General Lincoln in sup- 
pressing Shay's rebellion. In 1793 he was appointed Commis- 
sioner to make a treaty with Indians ; was afterwards Judge of 
Court of Common Pleas of Middlesex County ; and Major- 
General of the 3d Division of Massachusetts Militia. 

F.WIILV VERY DISTIXGUISHED IN BATTLE. 

General Hull's brothers, Samuel and Joseph, were distin- 
guished officers of the Revolution. Joseph boarded and cap- 
tured two armed British vessels. This brother Joseph was the 
father of the distinguished Commodore Isaac Hull, U. S. Navy, 
who captured the British Frigate Guerriere. Gen. Hull's only 
son, Capt. Abraham Fuller Hull, 9th Infantry, was killed while 
leading a charge, in which he distinguished himself, at the bat- 
tle of Lundy's Lane, July 25, 1814. 

Gen. Hull was State Senator from 1798 to 1S05, when he was 
appointed Governor of Michigan Territory. 

Early in 181 2, the Indians had been incited to hostility 
against us by the British. The only practicable means of sup- 
plying the isolated settlement of Detroit was by vessels upon 
Lake Erie; the only land communication with other settlements 
being a distance of 200 miles through a dense wilderness. 

ACCEPTED COMMAND SOLELY TO PROTECT SETTLERS. 

Eustis, Secretary of War, asked Hull to take command of 
troops ordered to Detroit. The Secretary asserts that he de- 
clined, but finally accepted for the distinct purpose of enabling 
him better to protect settlers in Michigan from Indian attacks 
and depredations. The exact words of Secretary Eustis were : 

" The latter part of February, 1812, information had been received from 
Mr. .\twater, then Secretary of the Territory of Michigan and acting as Gov- 
ernor, that there were strong appearances of hostility among the Indians, and 



56 

that the Territory was In danger. That Gen. Hull urged on him as Secretary 
of War, the expediency and necessity of ordering a force there for the protec- 
tion of Detroit, the territory and the northern frontier. That he declined, in 
the first instance, accepting the office of Brigadier-General. That Colonel 
Kingsbury was then ordered to Washington for the purpose of proceeding to 
the State of Ohio to take command of this force, and on account of bodily in- 
disposition, was not ordered to command ; and afterwards, when he [General 
Hull] was appointed, it was not solicited by him, and that he manifested great 
anxiety for the safety of the northern frontier and the Territory of Michigan." 

It should be noted that this was from the Secretary of War, 
who, together with Gen. Dearborn, sought later to shift upon 
General Hull the responsibility for disasters caused by their 
neglect or mismanagement. This military appointment, thus 
forced upon General Hull against his wish, was coupled with 
the assurance on the part of the Government that, in the event of 
a war with England, a naval force would be placed upon Lake 
Erie, as Hull had previously and frequently urged in official 
letters to the War Department, especially in those dated April 
3, 1809, June 15, 181 1, and March 6, 1812, in which he insisted 
that in such contingency Detroit could not be held unless the 
lake was kept under our control. 

Before reaching Detroit, and before he had any intimation 
of the declaration of war with England, the entire baggage of 
his troops with the hospital stores and implements were captured 
on Lake Erie by the British, and Fort Mackinaw, a post north 
of Detroit, immediately afterwards fell into their hands. 

General John Armstrong, who afterward became Secretary 
of War and an opponent of Hull, in his Notices of the War of 
1812 (p. 47), thus censures Secretary of War Eustis for this dis- 
aster : 

" We have seen that General Hull lost his own baggage and that of the 
army, the whole of his hospital stores and intrenching tools and sixty men, 
in consequence of the ill-judged and tardy manner employed in transmitting 
to him the declaration of war. A fact so extraordinary in itself, and so produc- 
tive of injury to the public, calls for more development than has yet been 
given to it. 

" Still more extraordinary was the fact that the news of the declaration of 
war reached the Canadian authorities some days before it reached General 
Hull, and this under the frank of a Washington official ; this error or treason 
being the direct cause of the disaster." 

General Hull hail been informed that, in the event of war, 
Canada would l)e invaded at the east end of Lake Erie, at or 



57 

near Niagara River, and he was instructed in that event that 
the troops at Detroit would be expected to co-operate with the 
Niagara force. This was so clearly the plan, that the President, 
in his message referring to the troops under Hull, said, that 
they were sent, in the event of war, to co-operate with other 
forces in that quarter. 

The exact words of the President's message were : 

" That the force sent to Detroit was with a general view to the security of 
the Michigan Territory, and, in event of war, to such operations in the upper- 
most Canada as would intercept the hostile influence of Great Britain over 
the savages and maintain co-operating relations with such forces as might be 
most conveniently employed against other parts." 

When Hull reached Detroit, he felt that the safety of the 
f rce which he supposed was invading Canada from the Ni- 
agara river made it imperative for him to commence offensive 
operations, and, therefore, though badly prepared, and although 
the enemy held the opposite bank, he successfully crossed the 
river on July 12th, invaded Canada one week after the head 
of his column reached Detroit, and successfully swept the Bri- 
tish before him. This was approved by the Secretary of War, 
who, on August ist, wrote General Hull : 

"Your operations are approved by the President." 

In another letter of the same date, the Secretary said to 
Hull : 

" The progress you have made and the success which has attended it are 
highly satisfactory to the President." 

By August 7th, General Hull had ascertained that there was 
no invasion into Canada nor any preparation for one, from 
Niagara river or any other point within the scope of his opera- 
tions; that Detroit was menaced by Indians; that the British 
commanded the water and the savages; and that the fortifi- 
cations in Canada could not be taken with the force and arma- 
ment under his command. As his instructions made his inva- 
sion contingent upon and as a co-operative force with others, 
and as no others had crossed, the purpose of his remaining in 
Canada no longer existed, and on the Sth of August he returned 
to the river and crossed to Detroit. 

With Lake Erie under the undisputed control of the British, 
the entire line of march to Detroit bein"- filled with hostile 



58 

Indians, and no attempt being made to co-operate by an inva- 
sion of Canada, on the east end of Lake Erie, all military men 
of experience considered the few hundred men under Hull, 
detached as they were, two hundred and fifty miles from re- 
enforcements or supplies, as virtually sacrificed by the declara- 
tion of war with England. 

General William Henry Harrison, afterward President, 
wrote to the Secretary of War, August 6, 1S12 : 

"The information received a day or two ago from Detroit is of the most 
unpleasant nature. The loss of Mackinaw will probably be followed by the 
capture of Fort Dearborn. It is my opinion that it will be the object of the 
British to draw as many of the Indians as possible toward Maiden to cut off 
the supplies from, and ultimately to capture General Hull's army." — Clarke's 
History of Campaign of 181 2, p. 396. 

The Government concurred in this, and suggested that Colo- 
nel Wells should re-enforce Detroit with a large detachment, 
and convey rations and supplies to Hull. General Harrison 
deemed this hardly practicable, thinking it would only add to 
the force sacrificed. Harrison, in replying to this suggestion, 
in his letter of August 10, 1812 (Daivsons Life of Harrison, p. 
275;, says : 

" I greatly fear the capture of Mackinaw will give such 6clat to the Bri- 
tish and Indians that the northern tribes will pour down in swarms upon 
Detroit, oblige General Hull to act on the defensive, and meet and perhaps 
overpower the convoys and re-enforcements which may be sent him. It 
appears to me, indeed, highly probable that the large detachment which is 
now destined for his relief under Colonel Wells will have to fight its way. 
I rely greatly on the valor of these troops, but it is possible that the event 
may be adverse to us, and if it is, Detroit must fall." 

(See Clarke's Campaign of i8j2, p. 397.) 

hull's force sacrificed by dearborn. 

The Government appreciated these views and was deeply 
impressed with the jeopardy in which Hull's force was placed; 
and directions were given to create a diversion at the east end 
of Lake Erie to induce a withdrawal of a portion of the enemy 
which was in front of Hull, and thus release the pressure upon 
the beleagured forces at Detroit. General Hull had frequently 
in his letters shown the necessity of such a diversion. 

During July the often repeated orders of the Secretary of 
War to General Dearborn, who commanded the entire north- 



59 

ern army, were similar to the following paragraph in the orders 
to General Dearborn, dated August i, cited in Appendix No. lo 
to Armstrong's Notices of the War of 1812 : 

"You will make a diversion in favor of him [General Hull] at Niagara 
and Kingston, as soon as it may be practicable." 

Major-General Dearborn neglected to make the slightest 
movement to comply with these instructions, but in direct vio- 
lation of these orders made an armistice with the enemy, ex- 
cluding Hull's force from its benefits, which enabled the British 
Major-General Brock and Sir George Prevost (who had full 
control of Lake Erie) to throw their entire army and thousands 
of Indians upon Hull and compel, the surrender of his little 
undisciplined and unprovisioned force of about 600 men. In 
the Life of Sir George Prevost, this armistice is spoken of as a 

"ruse de guerre as creditable to the shrewdness and sagacity of Sir George 
Prevost, as it was disreputable for the obtuseness or treachery of General 
Dearborn." 

No. II of Armstrong's Notices of the War of 1S12, in the 
appendix, is the following extract of a letter from Sir George 
Prevost to General Brock : 

" I consider it most fortunate that I have been able to prosecute this 
object of the government [the armistice] without interfering with your opera- 
tions on the Detroit." 

(See Clarke's History, p. 355.) 

General Armstrong, afterward Secretary of War, in his 
Notices of the War of 181 2, vol i, p. 97, says : 

"We have already stated that to lessen the pressure on General Hull, 
Major-General Dearborn was directed to make such movements against the 
British posts in his front as would have the effect of preventing them from 
re-enforcing the garrison at Maiden, or otherwise altering the relation as to 
strength which had hitherto e.xisted between Hull and Proctor. 

"But for this service the major-general had made no preparation, and 
appeared to have little relish, as on the very day on which he was thus in- 
structed by the Government (though sufficiently apprized that detachments 
had been sent to Maiden and that the situation of Hull was becoming more 
critical every moment) he did not hesitate to enter into an armistice by which 
he completely disabled himself from giving any aid to that officer either by 
vigorously assailing the British posts in his front (now rendered cc.mparatively 
weak by the absence of Brock and the troops carried with him), or by extend- 
ing to him and his army the benefits of the temporary suspension of hostili- 
ties into which he had entered." 



6o 

(See Clarke's Campaign of 1812, p. 354.) 

On August 12, 1S12, General Hull's situation was as follows: 
his last letter from the War Department (July 9) informed him 
that he must not rely upon reinforcements. On the north, 
Michilimackinac had fallen, and 3,200 Indian warriors were 
marching on Detroit from that quarter. The lake which lay 
to the south of Detroit and east, was under the undisputed 
control of the British. On the south or southwest a dense 
forest, for over two hundred miles, filled with hostile Indians, 
separated him from the nearest settlements. The detachments 
under Major V'an Horn and Colonel Miller which had attempted 
to penetrate this forest and succor a much needed and hoped 
for convoy with provisions, had been checked or driven back 
by the hordes of Indians who. aided and directed by British 
officers, had established strong fortifications within fourteen 
miles of Detroit. To the west was an unexplored wilderness. 

Perkin's History of the War of 1812, p. 2,i^ says : 

" On the 4th of Ausjust, Major Van Horn with 200 men was sent to open 
communications, but was driven back in disorder, losing 7 officers and 10 men 
killed and 30 wounded. 

"On August 8th, Col. Miller was detatched with 600 men for the same 
purpose. He fought gallantly, but on the loth returned to Detroit without 
effecting the object. He lost Si killed and wounded. 

"Col. Miller reports the force he engaged at 200 British, 100 militia and 
450 Indians — in all, 750." 

Major-General Jacob Brown's official report says : 

"Col. Miller mentioned Capt. Hull as entitled to distinction." 

" Afterwards Colonels McArthur and Cass were sent with two regiments 

to open the communications, but they too met a fortified enemy and returned 

to Detroit." 

The failure of these three expeditions proved conclusively 
that it was impossible to open communications with the settle- 
ments in Ohio, and as the food supply was now much reduced, 
it became evident that it would be impossible to sustain the 
people in the garrison for many days. 

Letters just received from Generals Hall and Porter, who 
commanded small posts to the east on Lake Erie, informed him 
that 

" a large number of boats filled with British troops had passed over to Fort 
Maiden, and that the British forces with the Canadian Militia and savages on 
the opposite side of Niagara river were moving by water to the same point." 



6i 

At the same time General Hull was informed that 

" nothing could be done to check their movements, and that no assistance or 
co-operation could be afforded to him." 

General Hull's troops, estimated by his brigade major, Jes- 
sup, at from 600 to 700 officers and men, which included team- 
sters, laborers and other non-combatants, were ignorant, undis- 
ciplined, and many of them imbued with a spirit of insubor- 
dination and mutiny, fostered and encouraged, and in some 
cases even initiated by militia officers of all grades, including 
colonels of regiments. 

On the day that General Brock attacked, Major Jessup 
officially reported to General Hull that the effective force at 
Detroit was but 600. (See Jessup's Evidence, p. 94; Memoirs, p. 
204.) 

They were without efficient arms, with but little ammunition, 
and were deficient in supplies of all kinds. (See Colonel Mil- 
ler's evidence, and Memoirs of Campaign of 181 2, p. 61.) 

In his front was Major-General Brock with a thoroughly 
equipped and disciplined army, with no limit to the vast hordes 
of Indians who were anxious to obey his orders; and the armis- 
tice which Sir George Prevost had effected with Major-General 
Dearborn, placed at General Brock's disposal as many thousand 
British troops as he could possibly desire. 

The Detroit River and the lake were commanded by well 
armed British naval ships; and two, the Queen Charlotte and the 
Hunter, were in the river guarding and assisting the crossing of 
General Brock's forces, during which the former ship kept up a 
warm fire with her heavy cannon. (See Snelling's Evidence, p. 

37) 

In addition to these, General Brock had subject to his com- 
mand the entire Canadian militia, which numbered more than 
18,000 men. (See Memoirs of 1812, pages 19 and 20.) 

This was the condition of affairs when Major-General Brock 
wrote as follows : 

"August 15, 1812. 

"General William Hull: 

" The force at my disposal authorizes me to require of you the immediate 
surrender of Fort Detroit. It is far from my intention to join in a war of 
extermination ; but you must be aware that the numerous bodies of Indians 



62 

who have attached themselves to my troops will be beyond my control the 
moment the contest commences. 

"You will find me disposed to enter into such conditions as will satisfy 
the most scrupulous sense of honor. Lieutenant-Colonel McDowell and 
Major Glegg are fully authorized to conclude any arrangement that may lead 
to prevent the unnecessary effusion of blood. 

" ISAAC BROCK. Major-General." 

General Hull was Governor of a defenseless people, as well 
as commander of the troops at Detroit. His pride as a soldier 
induced him to reply that he was prepared to meet any force at 
General Brock's disposal and any consequence which might re- 
sult from it. Brock opened a severe fire from his batteries and 
advanced his troops to the attack. 

The engagement commenced about noon on the 15th, con- 
tinued until lo o'clock that night, was renewed at break of 
day, and continued until nearly eleven o'clock on the i6th. 
Hull left the inclosed fort, rode to his advanced battery under 
a heavy fire and personally superintended the dispositions for 
defense. (See Maxwell's Evidence, p. 12S.) 

During the firing Hull lost 5 killed and iS wounded. He 
had previously, on August 4th and 8th, lost 35 killed and 94 
wounded. 

The evidence of Major Munson and Captains Dyson and 
Maxwell says : 

"General Hull's bearing was cool and collected." 

Evidence of substantially the same character was given by 
Colonels Richard Piatt, Robert Troup, Samuel Earned, Gen- 
erals James Taylor and William North, and Eieutenants Lem- 
uel Clift and Jonah Bacon. 

Notwithstanding the hopelessness of the situation General 
Hull continued to make all possible preparations for defense ; 
but during the night one hundred of his men deserted with 
their arms to the British standard, confirming the previous 
statements of the militia colonels that these men could not be 
relied upon. The Michigan militia had been for years separated 
by vast forests from American settlements. Social and business 
relations and frequent marriage connections with the Canadians 
had caused a growth of identity of feeling and interest. (Me- 
moirs of 1812, page 60.) Most of the remainder of Hull's forces 
were raw militia, without drill or discipline. They had been 



63 

disobedient, insubordinate and mutinous. While Hull was en- 
gaged under fire in the front, Colonel Brush notified him that 
if his men were called upon to fight "they would run away to a 
man." There had been a general threat to desert and two com- 
panies actually did desert to the British. 

In Memoirs of Campaign of 1S12, page 60, we find the fol- 
lowing : 

" In addition to all this combination of force which was proceeding 
against me, symptoms appeared in the interior of my camp not less alarming; 
the spirit of mutiny which before had manifested itself in whispers increased 
and became more open. It was evident it was now fostered and encouraged 
by the principal officers of the militia and was fast rising into an avowed 
conspiracy." 

This was the condition of the garrison of Detroit when its 
commander found himself confronted by the forces of Sir 
George Prevost and Major-General Brock, with all of the 
military resources of England then in Canada at their disposal. 
General Dearborn, the commander-in-chief of the American 
army, having stipulated and agreed that the American army, 
with the exception of Hull's force, would remain quiet during 
an indefinite period, during which the entire resources of Eng- 
land then in Canada were left free to overpower and cap- 
ture the troops under General Hull. At daylight on the i6th, 
General Hull was with his troops outside the fort engaging the 
enemy. Dearborn's armistice had thrown upon him all the 
British troops, Canadian militia and Indians on the northern 
frontier. He had learned that in addition to this combination 
and increase of the enemy's force, contrary to all expectations, 
the Wyandots, Chippewas, Ottawas, Pottawatomies, Munsees, 
and Delawares, all tribes of Indians who had been counted 
upon as friendly with Americans, had gone over and joined 
the British standard. A report dated after the loss of Detroit, 
published in a French Canadian paper, gives the following as 
the British force in Canada : 

Royal Artillery 500 

First Royal Scots Infantry, first battalion 1,200 

Eighth Regiment, King's Own 1,000 

Forty-first Regiment, first battalion. 900 

Forty-first Regiment, second battalion 350 

Forty-ninth Regiment 'O) 

One Hundredth Regiment 90<j 



64 

One Hundred and Third Regiment.. 8oc 

One Hundred and Fourth Regiment 750 

First Veteran Battalion.. 500 

Canadian Fencibles 800 

Nineteenth Dragoons 500 

Glengary Fencibles 800 

Voltigeur Corps Soo 

Embodied militia, about 6,000 

Two troops volunteer cavalry 150 

Three companies chasseurs 150 

Eighty-ninth Regiment 500 

German Legion, called De Walleville's 16,00 

Total 18,900 

In consequence of the unfortunate and unwise armistice 
made by General Dearborn, nearly all of these troops could 
have been brought against Hull within a very few days and to 
this British force could be added as many thousand Indians as 
the British desired. One of the detachments General Hull had 
sent with orders for Colonels Cass and McArthur to join him 
now came in, having been driven back by the enemy, and 
reported their inability to continue upon their mission. The 
fort, or rather inclosure, had become filled with women, chil- 
dren, and old and decrepit people of the town and country. 
The enemy's fire had already killed some of those helpless peo- 
ple, and they could not retire back of the town without being 
killed by the Indians. Cass's Evidence, p. 27, Appendix, says 
that the fort into which the enemy's shot and shells were fall- 
ing was only large enough for jtjo men. The evidence of Snel- 
ling, p. 42, McCormack, p. 46, and Jessup, p. 96, showed that the 
troops were crowded in the fort. 

The whole effective force under General Hull were new 
troops unaccustomed to camp life. A laborious march, a num- 
ber of combats and skirmishes, in which a portion of these 
troops had engaged, a large amount of sickness, and a want of 
medicines and comforts had still further reduced his strength 
of effective troops. 

Letters written by officers at Detroit, in July and August, 
were emphatic in assertions that supplies were nearly exhausted. 
Colonel Cass had written to Governor Meigs and to his own 
brother-in-law a few days before the surrender that the army 
was 



65 

"in want of everything, and must perish unless soon assisted," 

also using expressions in liis letters to them of which the follow- 
ing is a sample : 

" Our situation is become critical. Bad as you may think our situation, it 
is still worse than you can believe." 

While in this defenseless condition Major Anderson brought 
the intelligence that two companies, the advanced post under 
Captains Knagg and Shover, had gone over to the enemy, while 
at the same time Colonel Brush exclaimed to his general, "By 
God, every man [of his regiment] had or would desert to the 
British." Events adverse to General Hull and over which he 
had no control had transpired in rapid succession : 

First. The fall of Mackinaw and Chicago, and the destruc- 
tion of the garrison of the latter place. 

Second. The absolute impossibility of procuring ammunition 
and provisions. 

Third. The failure of convoys with supplies to make their 
way to him from the settlements. 

Fourth. The general uprising of the Canadian militia and 
the fact that all the savages, including many tribes heretofore 
friendly, had joined the British standard. 

Fifth. The ignorance, disaffection, conspiracy, and mutiny 
which pervaded his troops, culminating in desertion to the 
enemy. 

Sixth. The action of General Dearborn in failing to comply 
with orders from the Secretary of War to make a diversion in 
General Hull's favor. 

Seventh. The astounding conduct of Dearborn in agreeing 
to an armistice which turned all the British forces upon General 
Hull's small detachment. This was the situation when, on the 
i6th day of August, General Hull found his most advanced 
post had deserted and joined the British troops. 

The character of General Dearborn's armistice was sufficient 
to justify Hull in the belief that General Dearborn entered into 
the armsitice with the view that the sacrifice of the force at 
Detroit which would inevitably result would be compensated 
for by advantages which he expected to gain in other localities. 
The hundred or more of his men who had deserted during the 
night were now with Major-General Brock, and that officer was 



WHEL. GEN. — a. 



66 

now thoroughly informed regarding the deplorable condition of 
Hull's force, their limited supplies and ammunition, and the 
disaffection and mutinous spirit which prevailed. 

We must remember that well-informed men considered the 
few men under Hull at Detroit as sacrificed by the declaration 
of war, and we must also remember that this opinion was ex- 
pressed before any one of these unfortunate events had befallen 
us. It is, therefore, plain that after these events the loss of 
Detroit was inevitable. It was clear a further effort at battle 
would accomplish nothing, and it was equally clear that a 
butchery of women and children would follow should further 
progress of the conflict be permitted. Xo alternative was left 
but to capitulate to General Brock while it was still in the 
power of that officer to protect the non-combatants from the 
knife of the savages. It was impossible under the circumstances 
to avert defeat, and it was clear that even a temporary success 
over General Brock would avail nothing, as the rapidly ap- 
proaching force both of British and Indians would, in a few 
hours, number twenty armed men to every fighting soldier 
under his command. The terms obtained by General Hull 
secured an immediate parole and return to their homes of 
most of the garrison, making, however, no stipulations favor- 
able to himself. 

Not a word of censure was heard either by the army or 
people. General Armstrong, in his Notices of the War of 1S12, 
No. 10, says : 

"The inaction by General Dearborn, which enabled Brock to leave his 
posts on Niagara undisturbed and unmenaced, and even to carry with him a 
part of his force to Detroit and there to capture Hull, his army, and territory, 
was not noticed by any kind of disapprobation on the part of the Government. 
The inference is fair that it [the Government] was willing to take the responsi- 
bility on itself." 

The edition September fifth of The War, a newspaper said to 
have been published, at least in a measure, under the auspices 
of the Government, contains the account of the loss of Detroit, 
in which it uses these words : 

"General Hull's army is represented as having been in the greatest dis- 
tress. They were almost destitute of provisions, and many of them were 
sick. It is said that eight hundred only were able to do duty." 

The same article also said: 



67 

'Tc whom to attribute this great national disaster we do not know, but 
conjecture that the biame will fall upon the-Secretary of War." 

The Administration did not attempt to deny that all the 
blame attending the loss of these troops rested entirely upon 
them or upon General Dearborn whose situation was such as 
to really make him a part ot the Administration This is sup- 
ported by the following letter taken from Records of the War 
Office, volume 6, page 253 . 

'War Department, December 18, 1812. 

Sir Your lecter of the nth is received. Fortunately for you, the 
want ot success which has attended the campaign wib be attributed to the 
Secretary ot War. So long as you enjoy the confidence ot the Government 
the clamor 01 the discontented should not be regarded. You are requested to 
make an exchange of General Hull as soon as possible. 

WILLIAM EUSTIS, 

Secretary of War. 
Major- General Dearborn.' 

At noon on August 14th, Colonels McArthur and Cass were 
ordered, with the able-bodied men of their regiments, to pro- 
ceed to succor the convoy of supplies then on the River Raisin 
en route to Detroit. They marched with 400 men and guides; 
but the sworn testimony of both McArthur and Cass admits 
that the next day^ the 15th, they commenced their return, to 
Detroit thus abandoning the purpose which they had been or- 
dered to accomplish. While returning they learned of the 
arrival of General Brock, on Detroit River. They heard firing; 
and men sent in advance reported that the American flag was 
flying on the fort. McArthur and Cass halted until they learned 
that the fort had capitulated. They then retreated to River 
Rouge, where council was held. Some of the officers thought 
that should they attempt to retreat to the settlements, they 
"would fall a sacrifice to the Indians." 

Colonel McArthur further testifies that he sent a flag to 
General Brock 
" to ascertain what terms were or could be made for our [his] detachment." 

McArthur and Cass then marched to Detroit, surrendered, were 
paroled and returned to their homes. 

The most pronounced division in political opinion at this 
time was between the war party and those who believed it was 



68 

unnecessary and ought to have been averted. The Adminis- 
tration and war party were severely censured for their man- 
agement, which resulted in the disaster at Detroit. The Presi- 
dential election was now about to take place, and the effort of 
any one tending to turn the tide of disapprobation from the 
door of the Administration was most earnestly desired. 

Any blame placed upon Hull was a measure of relief to 
General Dearborn and the Administration. The officers who 
had been paroled at Detroit arrived in Washington in this crisis. 
Some of them were politicians enough to see a road to promo- 
tion and preferment, and with British paroles in their pockets 
commenced misrepresentation, the purpose of which was to 
shield the Secretary of War and General Dearborn and cast the 
blame, resulting from their errors, upon General Hull, who was 
a prisoner at Montreal. 

A militia colonel, without ever having been in battle, was 
appointed to the rank of brigadier-general in the regular army, 
and others, who were at Detroit, and who aided in sustaining 
and shielding General Dearborn and the Administration, were 
also liberally promoted. These officers, whose only military 
knowledge was acquired during the short service of a few weeks, 
insisted that if Hull had held out, supplies and re-enforcements 
would have been brought to succor him. Subsequent events 
showed that Hull was right in not relying upon such a contin- 
gency. 

After the loss of this meager force, General Harrison was 
placed in command of the Northwest with over 10,000 men, and 
ordered to penetrate to Detroit. By October 22, 181 2, he had 
made no progress, and writes to the Government as follows : 

"To get supplies forward through a swampy wilderness of near two 
hundred miles in wagons or on pack horses which are to carry their pro- 
visions is absolutely impossible." 

(See Armstrong's Notes of the War, vol. i, p. 59; also Clarke's Northern 
Campaign, p. 373.) 

And ii was not until after Perry's victory in September, 1813, 
which opened Lake Erie, that Harrison was able to act against 
Detroit. How criminally unjust to censure Hull for not hold- 
ing Detroit under such circumstances, and how equally unjust 
to censure him for not cutting his way through to the American 
settlement I His effective force, as before stated, was hardly 



69 

six hundred strong. His road required a detour for sixty miles 
to the southwest, along the bank of the lake, making it neces- 
sary for him to cross all rivers and streams at their mouth, all 
of which, together with the lake, were under the undisputed 
control of the British, with their army and Indian allies, and a 
naval force consisting of five vessels ot war and a number of 
gunboats, some of the British vessels carrying twenty cannon 
(see Memoirs of 1812, p. 27), while at the same time Dearborn's 
armistice turned the entire force of the English and Indians to 
attack him by both land and water, and impede his march at 
every step. Two months later Major-General Harrison, with 
10,000 men, found and reported it impossible to penetrate the 
forest from the settlement to Detroit, and this, too, after the 
armistice had terminated, and only a small portion of the Brit- 
ish and Indians were opposing him, and when no portion of 
the British navy was in position to menace his line of march. 
(See Memoirs of 1812, p. 73.) 

Again, the action of two prominent officers of that command 
showed that Hull was right. When he was attacked. Colonels 
Cass and McArthur were or should have been and were sup- 
posed by General Hull to be two days' march, en route for the 
States, with 400 picked men, all of the healthy and effectives of 
the two regiments. They were not incumbered with luggage, 
and they had been furnished an extra supply of ammunition, 
which reduced that due to the other troops. Major-General 
Brock and Sir George Prevost were engaged against Hull, yet 
Cass and McArthur, with all these advantages, did not deem 
it advisable to attempt to reach the settlements, but gladly 
marched to Detroit and surrendered themselves and their com- 
mands to the British forces. 

With what propriety could Hull have attempted the same 
march, with the women and the sick and feeble, and attacked at 
every step by the armies of Sir George Prevost and Major-Gen- 
eral Brock, aided by the vast hordes of Indians which these 
officers controlled? That General Hull did right is now the 
verdict of every honest and intelligent man in America ; and 
every informed and honest historian of the present day justifies 
him in every particular. So clearly was he justified by the Ad- 
ministration, that any thought of censuring him was not in any 
way suggested. On the contrary, the Secretary of War, after 



70 

four months' deliberation, writes under date of December i8, 
1S12 : 

"The want of success which has attended this campaign will be attributed 
to the Secretary of War." — Clarke's Campaign of i5i2, page 421. 

It was clear that General Dearborn and the Administration 
had brought about the disaster, and it was difficult to see how 
any one could so pervert facts as to relieve them from the res- 
ponsibility. At first, no attempt was made, but the Administra- 
tion soon found officers, who had surrendered at Detroit and 
who had come to Washington with British paroles in their pock- 
ets, willing and apparently anxious to seek preferment from 
those in power, and they commenced to decry their old com- 
mander, then in a British prison, at the same time lauding Gen- 
eral Dearborn and the Administration. The officers who were 
most active against Hull were soon given commissions in the 
regular army, not because of any service whatever, but because 
they were violent political partisans and supporters of the 
Administration. (See Clarke's Campaign, 1S12, p. 423.) 

Not one of them ever received a brevet for any service, and 
as far as can be learned, with the exception of the fighting in the 
Detroit campaign, not one had ever been in battle, and some of 
them, during their entire career, were never in any engagement. 
It was such men who were loudest in their criticisms and con- 
demnation of a veteran of twenty battles, and a trusted friend of 
Washington. The official documents, which have since so thor- 
oughly vindicated General Hull, were kept from the public, and 
no one was able to refute the charges, by publishing General 
Harrison's letter of August 6, 1S12. which states that even under 
conditions much more favorable than those which surrounded 
Hull on August 16, ''Detroit must fall." Nor did anyone show, 
that while Cass and the Administration and General Harrison 
regarded Hull's position as critical, he was cruelly sacrificed by 
the failure of General Dearborn to obey orders and make a 
diversion in favor of General Hull, but who, on the contrary, 
made an armistice and threw the whole British force in Canada 
upon him. 

Military men and historians who know the circumstances con- 
nected with tliis campaign, fully exonerate and commend Gen- 
eral Hull. Personally, I thoroughly sustain the position, that 



71 

where an officer is in command of a post, the garrison of which 
is composed only of soldiers, he should defend it to the last 
extremity. I contend when a commander surrenders a post, he 
incurs a very grave responsibility ; and if events show that it 
could have been held or advantages gained, no palliation or ex- 
cuse should be considered l)y the Government. 

But the case of Hull was very different from this. He had 
been governor of tlie people around Detroit for a period of 
seven vears. The inhabitants were men, women and children — 
absolutely helpless. They were surrounded by many thousands 
of savage Indians, whose greatest delight was to massacre 
women and children; and massacres of this character by these 
Indian were fresh upon the minds of the people. The enclosure 
was not a fort that would prove an}' material resistance to an 
attack from the British, and was so small that only a very few 
of the women and children could be sheltered therein, and there 
was no way to give any protection to the women and children 
who were on the outside. 

Experience had shown that where an assault was made by 
British and Indians, the British had been absolutely unable to 
prevent them massacring women and children. Hull was 350 
miles from any possible succor. Most of his able-bodied men 
were supposed to be two days' march distant, trying to reach a 
hoped for convoy. He knew that the entire force in Canada, 
more than ten times his strength, and their force of Indians, 
twenty times his numbers, were in the vicinity. No benefit 
would have obtained by continuing such an unequal struggle, 
while the ultimate result would have been a general massacre. 

We have given the official statements of President Madison 
and Secretary of War Eustis, which prove that the protection of 
these settlers from the Indians was the paramount purpose for 
which this force was sent to Detroit; and that it was for this 
object that General Hull accepted the command. The evidence 
is conclusive that capitulation to Major-General Brock upon his 
pledge that the British troops under his command would pro- 
tect these helpless people from the savages was the only feasible 
way of accomplishing this object after other means had failed. 
The history of Detroit during that period shows that this pledge 
was fully kept by General Brock. 



72 

Sheldon's History of Michigan, p. 404, says : 

" It is true that the orders of General Brock were very strict; he did all 
he could to protect us, and probably prevented a general massacre of the Am- 
ericans." 

And General Brock in his official report states that the capitula- 
tion of the armed forces at Mackanac and Detroit enabled him 
to protect the non-combatants from the Indians. 

It was not until John C. Calhoun became Secretary of War 
that the public documents which fully vindicated General Hull 
were obtained. These official records show that the fall of De- 
troit, under the circumstances, was inevitable, and that no cen- 
sure or blame should attach to General Hull : and as said by 
Lossing, in his history of that war : 

"When he [Hull] could perceive no other alternative but surrender or 
destruction, he bravely determined to choose the most courageous and hu- 
mane course." 

Even if Hull had not been embarrassed by his duty to pro- 
tect the numerous women and children from the savages, the 
conditions surrounding him made successful resistaijce impossi- 
ble; and even with the women feature eliminated, every reader 
of history will recall many thousand capitulations where the 
commanding officer was a military man of great reputation, and 
where the necessity did not approximate that of this case, and 
yet no censure followed. The reason is that the continuation 
of a defence or other action and the sacrifice of the lives of men 
when no possible advantage will result, is regarded by the 
world in general, and by military men of the highest standing, 
as a criminal abuse of the power intrusted to a commander. 
This was what actuated General Anderson at Fort Sumter, in 
1861, General Robert E. Lee, General Joseph E. Johnson and 
General Bedford Forrest, in 1S65, and George Washington 
when he surrendered Fort Necessity. Certainly Washington 
had a much better opportunity to hold Fort Necessity than 
Hull had to hold Detroit, but no one ever thought of censuring 
Washington for surrendering that Fort. 

(See : Jared Sparks' Letters and Correspondence of Washington. 
Benson J. Lossing, LL. D., Pictorial History of the War of i3i2, pages 

251 to 297, 
Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. iii, p. 30S. 
Harper's Cyclopedia of United States History, pages 657 to 65S, 



73 

Benson J. Lossing, LL.D., in Potter's American Monihly Magazine, 

August, 1S75, pages 561 10 568, 
Memoir of General William Huil, by Samuel C. Clarke, 
Congressional Record, 47th Congress, 2d Session, Appendix, pages 271 

to 278, 
Memoirs of the Campaign of 1812, 
Military and Civil Life of General Hull, by Mrs. Campbell and his 

grandson, Rev. James Freeman Clarke, of Boston.) 

These works fully vindicate his memory from the false and 
unjust charges under which he suffered. 



HEROES NOT BOASTFUL MEN. 

In every country and in every army, there are men who boast 
of what they would do in battle and in trying circumstances; 
and with bombastic arrogance assert that an army ought to die 
to the last man rather than surrender. 

History tells us that this kind of men are boastful and hero- 
ically inclined when far from the scene, but are generally want- 
ing in courage when in the actual field of battle. 

The true heroes in battle are the cool, modest, quiet, uncom- 
plaining men like Washington, Andrew Jackson, Grant, Lee, 
Stonewall Jackson, Forrest and the Johnstons. Such great 
men, and all truly brave men, refuse to condemn officers who 
have surrendered positions unless they, under like circumstan- 
ces, would have held out and refused to surrender. 

The established and recognized rule in such matters among 
true and skilful soldiers is that a strategic or tactical position 
should be held regardless of the sacrifice that must inevi- 
tably result; but when an officer is in command of troops in a 
locality, the occupation or defence of which is not connected 
with operations in other localities and not necessary to their 
success, and finds himself so situated that the greatest courage, 
endurance and determined sacrifice cannot be of advantage to 
the cause he serves, the question of securing terms of surrender 
is often admissible and proper. Quite a number of surren- 
ders of considerable bodies of soldiers, and in some cases posi- 
tions of importance, by both the Boers and the English, were 
made during the war in South Africa; but as our people are 
undoubtedly more interested in American history, attention 
will be briefiv called to 



59 SURRENDERS AND CAPITULATIONS, 

many of which were by officers of high distinction and great 
military reputation. It will be noticed that during the Revolu- 
tion, four surrenders by the British to the Americans included 
15.003 prisoners and 47S cannon, while the two surrenders of 
the Americans to the British included 8,225 "^^" ^^id 498 can- 
non. During the War of 1812, the two surrenders by the Brit- 
ish to the United States included 1,461 prisoners and 18 cannon, 
while the six surrenders to the British included 3,251 prisoners 
and 83 cannon. During the Civil War, up to January, 1865, the 
nmeteen surrenders to the United States included 68,852 prison- 
ers and 781 cannon, while the 25 surrenders of the United 
States troops to the Confederates included 55,161 prisoners and 
405 cannon. 

Some were, without doubt, necessary and proper, but the 
writer believes he is correct in the opinion, based upon reports, 
that more than halt of these 59 surrenders were unnecessary, 
and unjustified by the rules which govern military operations. 
In some cases the commander should have defended, and in 
others the position should have been evacuated before it was 
too late; but the commanders who were responsible for such 
surrenders were given the benefit of all doubts, and their error 
of judgment was not deemed sufficient cause to justify their 
condemnation or punishment. 

We w'ill commence the list of surrenders with that of Fort 
Necessity by Col. George Washington, on July 3d, 1754, and 
end with that of Lieut. -General Linares at Santiago, July i6th, 
1898, and that of Manila, August 13, 1S98. 

FORT NECESSITY SURRENDER. 

(Sparks' Life of Washington, Vol. ii, pp. 7, 462, 464, 466, 467; 
Moore's Indian Wars, pp. 186, 187; Fight with France for North 
America, by Bradley, pp. 73, 75; Lowdermilk, pp. 26, 27, 31, 67, 
73 to 80.) 

Lowdermilk, page 26: 

" In 174S a number of energetic Pennsylvanians had succeeded in estab- 
lishing an extensive trade with the Indians throughout the valleys along the 
.■\lleghany, and headwaters of the Ohio." 

Page 27 : 

" In 1749 the British Government gave them a charter under the name of 



'The Ohio Company' and a grant of 500,000 acres of land west of the Alleghe- 
nies, requiring the settlement upon them of one hundred families within seven 
years." 

Page 31: 

"The lands granted the Ohio Company were claimed by both the British 
and the French Governments." 

All accounts agree that the Indians were friendly to the 
English. Sparks, Note on page 7, says: 

"The Half King, Chief of the Six Nations, was devoted to the interests of 
the English." 

Lowdermilk, p. 47, states that the French established them- 
selves at the present site of Pittsburg, and that 

"The post was then garrisoned by nearly i,coo French soldiers under 
such officers as Jumonville, de Villiers and LaForce, and was named Fort du 
Quesne." 

Col. George Washington with 405 soldiers erected a fortifi- 
cation called Fort Necessity, on the southeast side of Laurel 
Ridge of the Alleghenies, and at a point 71 miles south south- 
east of Fort du Ouesne. 

Moore, page 187, says: 

"Washington, with two companies of soldiers and a body of Indians, ap- 
proached Fort du Quesne." 

On May 28, 1754, at a point 10 miles from Fort Necessity, 
the French were encountered. Lowdermilk, p. 67, quotes from 
Washington's diary: 

" We killed M. de Jumonville, the commander of that party, as also nine 
others; we wounded one and made twenty-one prisoners, among whom were 
M. LaFcrce, M. Drouillon and two cadets. The Indians scalped the dead and 
took away the most part of their arms, after which we marched on with the 
prisoners and the guard, to the Indian camp, where again I held a council 
with the Half King." 

On June 2Sth, M. de Villiers, the half brother of 'SI. de Ju- 
monville, marched from Fort du Ouesne ao^ainst Washingfton 
with 500 French soldiers and 11 Indians, and pursued Washing- 
ton across Laurel Ridge, which, from base to summit, is the 
highest ridge of the Alleghenies, and on July 3d came upon the 
American commander at a point about 7 miles from the Virginia 
line and 71 miles from his base at Fort du Ouesne. Washing- 
ton hati taken refuge in the fortifications of Fort Necessity. 



76 

After fighting for 8 hours, Washington surrendered the fort, 
garrison and 9 cannon to the French. 

Sparks, page 466, gives Washington's force as 405, and his 
losses at 12 killed and 43 wounded. Page 467 Sparks says: 

" M. de Villiers says he left Fort du Quesne with 500 Frenchmen and 11 
Indians. The number of French is perhaps correct; but the Indians were 
much more numerous when they arrived at the scene of action." 

Sparks, Vol. 2, page 462, quotes from M. de Villiers' report: 

"We considered that nothing could be more advantageous to the nation 
than this capitulation. We took hostages for the French who were in their 
power. We caused them to abandon the lands belonging to the King; we 
obliged them to leave their cannon, which consisted of nine pieces; we had 
destroyed all their horses and cattle. That very night the articles were signed, 
and I received in camp the hostages which I had demanded." 

Page 464, Sparks quotes Washington's remarks upon M. de 
Villiers' report, as follows : 

" That we left our baggage and horses at the meadows is certain; that 
there was not even a possibility to bring them away is equallv certain, as we 
had every horse belonging to the camp killed or taken away during the action; 
we destroyed our powder and other stores, nay, even our private baggage, to 
prevent its falling into their hands, as we could not bring it off." 

Lowdermilk, page 80, says that M. de Villiers reported his 
loss at 2 Frenchmen and one Indian killed, 15 French and 2 
Indians wounded. On pages 77 and 78 are given the terms of 
the capitulation in which M. de Villiers says: 

"Our intentions are to hinder any establishment on the lands of the 
dominions of the King, my master." 

M. de Villiers then grants some concessions: 

"On condition that they [the English] give their word of honor to work 
no more on any buildings in this place, or any part on this side of the moun- 
tains." 

Bradley, pages 73 and 75: 

"The affair at Great Meadows (Fort Necessity) was in itself a small 
affair, but its effect was prodigious. We may well believe it was now the 
talk of the back country from New Orleans to Lake Erie and the joy of 
Canada. No English traders dare any longer cross the mountains. British 
prestige vanished in the west, and the French were everywhere paramount." 

So far from any censure being cast on Washington he 
received high commendation, and on August 30th, 1754, the 



77 

House of Burgesses, which was the law-making power of 

Virginia, unanimously adopted the following resolution: 

"Ordered that the thanks of the House be given to Colonel George 
Washington and the officers under his command for their late gallant and 
brave behavior in the defense of their country." 

FORTS WASHINGTON AND LEE. 

In November, 1776, Fort Washington was situated on the 
Hudson near the foot of iSist Street, and Fort Lee on the 
Palisades directly opposite, General Washington being in 
supreme command. (Dawson,* p. 190, 192; Lossing,* Vol. ii, p. 
619; Sparks, p. 214.) 

November i6th, 1776, the British attacked Fort Washington, 
Colonel Magaw being in immediate command. After a warm 
fight Magaw surrendered the Fort, 2,818 prisoners and small 
arms, 55 cannon and stores to the British. Americans lost 25 
killed and 105 wounded. General Washington was a spectator 
to the surrender of Fort Washington, and Irwin's Life of Wash- 
ington states that "he wept with the tenderness of a child." 
This surrender made it necessary for General Washington to 
hurriedly retreat from Fort Lee. His dispatch to Congress of 
the retreat from Fort Lee was in these words: 

" We lost the whole of the cannon except two twelve-pounders, and a 
great deal of baggage, between two and three hundred tents, about 1,000 
barrels of flour and other stores." 

TRENTON. 

December 26th, 1776, Washington captured the British 
force at Trenton, 990 strong, together with their arms, and 6 
cannon, ammunition, transportation wagons and military stores. 
American loss, 2 killed and 3 wounded. British or Hessian lost 
10 killed and 30 wounded. (Dawson, Vol. i, p. 200; Carrington's 
Battle of Revolution, p. 353; Lossing's Field Book of the Revo- 
lution, p. 22.) 

burgoyne's surrender. 

October 17th, 1777, General Burgoyne surrendered his army, 
5,363 strong, to the Americans under General Gates, together 
with small arms and ammunition and 42 cannon. The prisoners 
included several Generals and 6 members of Parliament. Gates, 



* Dawson's Battles of the United States is referred to as Dawson; and Lajsing's Field 
Book 0/ the Revolution and the War of 1S12 is referred to as Lossing. 



73 

Adjt. -General Wilkinson gives the total American force for duty 
at 8,067, and '^he American loss at 65 killed and 218 wounded. 
(Dawson, Vol. i, p. 279; Lossing, p. 81.) 

General Burgoyne returned to England, vindicated his ac- 
tion, and was elected to Parliament. (Carnngton's Battle of 
Revolution, p. 353.) 

STONY POINT. 

June i6th, 1779, the Fortifications at Stony Point, and garri- 
son, 600 strong, with small arms and heavy cannon, commanded 
by Colonel Johnson, of the British Army, were captured by Gen. 
Anthony Wayne. American loss, 15 killed, 83 wounded; British 
lost 20 killed and 74 wounded. (Dawson, p. 517.) 

CHARLESTON. 

Ma}' 1 2th, 1780, Major-General Benjamin Lincoln, the com- 
mander of the Southern Department, with the larger portion of 
the Southern Army, surrendered City and Fortifications at 
Charleston, S. C, to the British under Sir Henry Clinton and 
Lord Cornwallis The surrender included 7 Generals, 5,465 
American officers and men and arms, 400 cannon and ammuni- 
tion, vessels and military stores. Clinton's and Cornwallis' 
forces were reported by them at 7,550. Lincoln's loss, 42 killed, 
148 wounded. British loss, 70 killed and 180 wounded. Lincoln 
was exchanged, given a prominent command and the following 
year was made Secretary of War. (Dawson, pp. 570-578; Los- 
sing, p. 560.) 

VORKTOWN. 

October 19th, 1781, the British Army at Yorktown surren- 
dered to Washington 8,087 prisoners including 2 Generals and 
235 cannon; also 24 ships, with 173 cannon, and a number of 
small sloops and schooners. Washington's loss, 72 killed, 202 
wounded. British loss, 156 killed and 326 wounded. The 
British commander. Lord Cornwallis, was honored by his 
Government. (Dawson, page 745.) 

M.^CKINAC. 

July 17th, 181 2, Lieutenant Porter Hanks, without the firing 
of a gun, surrendered Fort Mackinac, which was situated on 
the straits that lead from Lake Michigan to Lake Huron, to- 
gether with 75 men, only 57 effective, with arms and 7 cannon, 



(COI'Y.) 

War Dki'aktmknt. 



Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, May 27, 1902. 
GKNKRAI. JdSEI'H Wheei.kr, 

United States Army. 
SiK :— 

Replying to the request contained in your letter of the 20th inst., I have 
the honor to inform you that the number of officers and men who were sur- 
rendered to General Brock by General Hull, August 15th and i6th, 1S12, at 
Detroit, Michigan, is 41 officers and 400 men. 

Very respectfullv, 

H. C. CORBIN, 
Adjutant-General; MaJ.-Gen. U, S. A)'»iy. 



79 

to Captain Roberts, who commanded the British Fort 50 miles 

north of Mackinac. His force was ^^ British soldiers and a 

body of Indians. (Dawson, page 88.) 

Life of General Brock, page 128: 

"The capture of this Fort was most important in many ways. It was a 
well fortified position and the key to the western country. Its capture secured 
the adhesion of the Indians; it disconcerted General Hull, and without doubt, 
opened the door for the subsequent capture of Detroit." 

J)ETR0ri'. 

August i6th, 1S12, at Detroit, 441 officers and men and ^^ 
cannon surrendered to British under Major-Gen. Brock. Am- 
ericans lost 5 killed and iS wounded; Britsh lost 4 killed and 15 
wounded. Afterward 400 Americans, under Colonels McArthur 
and Cass, marched to Detroit and surrendered to General Brock. 
(Lossing's War of 1812, pp. 291 to 296; Congressional Record, 
47th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, pp. 271 to 278; Bryant, 
Vol. iv, p. 189; McMaster, Vol. iii, p. 559.) 

QUEEXSTOWN. 

October 13th, 1812, Lieut. -Col. Winfield Scott, at Queens- 
town, surrendered to the British 929 prisoners, including 71 
officers, small arms and i six-pound cannon. The other Ameri- 
can soldiers escaped. 

British accounts state that their force was 350 men until 
noon, when British General Sheaffe arrived from Fort George 
with about 400 men. In his report of the battle he says: 

"Our force did not, I believe, exceed the number of prisoners taken." 

British loss, 21 killed and 79 wounded. It seems that Gen- 
eral Wadsworth was present, but (Lossing, p. 400) waived his 
rank and Colonel Winfield Scott assumed command. 

After giving an account of the battle, Lossing (p. 403) says: 

"The American commander sent several messengers with flags bearing 
offers to capitulate. At length Lieut. -Col. Winfield Scott in the midst of the 
greatest peril reached the British commanding General and offered to sur- 
render the whole force, 900 men. Scott fi.xed a white cravat at the point of 
his sword, and with Captains Totten and Gibson made his way along the 
shore under shelter of a precipice." 

The report of the British commander said: 

" I had the satisfaction of receiving the sword of General Wadsworth on 
the field of battle, and many officers with 900 men were made prisoners." 



So 

Scott was not censured, but was exchanged and soon promoted 
to Brigadier-General. 

KRENXH RIVER. 

Dawson (page 194) states that on January 22nd, 1S13, Gen- 
eral Winchester and Colonel Lewis, after a fight in open field at 
French River, surrendered 537 prisoners to the British General, 
Proctor, who promised the Americans protection from the In- 
dians. The morning after the battle the Indians attacked and 
murdered the prisoners, burning the wounded in the buildings 
which were occupied as hospitals. Also (page 200) that the Am- 
ericans killed in the fight of the 22nd and murdered the follow- 
ing day numbered 397. Officers who were present say that only 
5 soldiers were killed in the fight on the 22nd; the others were ■ 
murdered the next day. 

FORT GEORGE. 

May 27th, 1S13, Fort George was evacuated by the British 
under General Vincent. The British surrendered in the Fort, 
or in the fight near Newark that day, 366 regulars and 507 
Canadian militia. American naval and land force 7,000. Loss 
17 killed and 45 wounded. (Lossing, pp. 59S and 600; Dawson, 
P- 234.) 

TH.'VMES. 

Oct. 5th, 1813, at the Thames, 601 British officers and men 
with arms surrendered to Major-General Harrison's army, 3,500 
strong, after a fight which lasted nine minutes. American loss 
5 killed and 18 wounded. British loss 12 killed, 22 wounded 
and 601 surrendered. (Dawson, \'ol. ii, pp. 291 and 293; Loss- 
ing. PP- 553 and 555.) 

FORT NIAGARA. 

December 19th, 1813, at Fort Niagara, Captain Nathaniel 
Leonard of General George McClure's command, surrendered 
\o 550 British under Colonel Murray, 14 officers and 410 Am- 
erican soldiers, together with 27 cannon, 3,000 stands of arms, 
ordnance, commissary stores, clothing and camp equipage. 
Highty American soldiers were murdered in their beds and 14 
wounded. British loss 6 killed and 5 wounded. (Lossing, page 
633; Dawson, p. 314.) 

FORT BOVVVER. 

February 9th, 1N15, Major William Lawrence surrendered 



8i 

Fort Bowyer, Mobile Harbor (now Fort Morgan) and the entire 
garrison. 364 strong, together with 20 cannon, arms, ammunition 
and supplies. Major Lawrence was promoted to full Colonel in 
the Regular Army. (Lossing, p. 105 i.) 

FORT SUMTER. 

April 14th. 1861, Major Robert Anderson, without the loss of 
a man, surrendered Fort Sumter and Charleston Harbor, with 
garrison and small arms and 78 cannon, and 39,400 pounds of 
powder. At Fort Moultrie 55 cannon, and at Castle Pickney 22 
cannon fell into the hands of the Confederates. (War Records, 
Vol. i, pp. 12, 16, 72, 130; Vol. iv, pp. 254, 315 and 349.) 

Major Anderson received the thanks of the Government and 
was promoted to Brigadier-General and Brevet Major-General 
in the Regular Army, and given command of a Department and 
an Army 49,000 strong. 

LEXINGTON. 

September 20th, 1861, at Lexington, Missouri, 3,500 Federals 
with small arms, 7 cannon, vast stores, 750 horses and equip- 
ments, were surrendered to General Sterling Price, whose force 
was 6,064. Federal lost 39 killed and 120 wounded. Confed- 
erate loss, 25 killed and 72 wounded. (War Records, Vol. iii, 
pages 185, 188.) 

FORT HENRY. 

February 6th, 1S62, General Lloyd Tilgham, with a loss of 2 
killed and 5 wounded, surrendered Fort Henry to General 
Grant, with garrison of 78 effective and 23 cannon. The main 
part of Fort Henry's garrison, 2,600 strong, had retired to Fort 
Donelson. General Tilgham was exchanged and promptly 
given another command. (War Records, Vol. vii, pages 142, 
143) 

ROANOKE ISLAND. 

February 8th, 1862, Colonel H. M. Shaw surrendered Roa- 
noke Island, four forts, 30 thirty-two-pound cannon with ammu- 
nition, and 2,500 Confederate soldiers, with arms and military 
stores. Confederate loss, 23 killed and 58 wounded. Federal 
loss, 37 killed and 214 wounded. General Henry A. Wise, the 
permanent commander, was ill. (War Records, Vol. ix, pages 
79, 85, 127 and 172.) 



WHEL. GEN.— 6. 



82 
FORT DONELSON. 

Feb. 16, 1862. Gen. Simon B. Buckner surrendered Fort 
Donelson. The average of 10 different statements makes the 
Confederate force 14,153 Federals claimed the capture of 65 
cannon, 17,600 small arms and 3,000 horses. Confederate loss 
248 killed and 1,100 wounded. Grant's loss 498 killed and 2,108 
wounded. (War Records, Vol. vii, pp. 159, 169, 328; W. P. John- 
son's Life of Albert Sj^dney Johnson, pp. 428, 443. 445, 453, 479, 
480, 482, Grant's Memoirs, pp. 298, 313, and Phisterer's Record, 
p. 214.) 

Grant's Memoirs, p. 29S, states that from the 12th to the 14th 
of February, his force at Fort Donelson was 15,000, and on the 
day of the surrender it was 27,000. War Department states it 
was 27,113 on the 15th. 

General Albert S. Johnson telegraphed on Feb. 14th, two 
days before the surrender: 

" If you lose the fort, bring your troops to Nashville." 

General Buckner was not censured, but when exchanged was 
promptly given a command and promoted to Major-General 
and Lieutenant-General. 

PRENTISS AT SHILOH. 

April 6th, 1862, at Shiloh, Gen. Benjamin H. Prentiss surren- 
dered to the Confederates his own division, 2,200 strong, with 
small arms and artillery, together with a part of Wallace's divi- 
sion, in all about 2,885 rn^n- Prentiss was exchanged and pro- 
moted to be a Major-General, Nov. 29th, 1862, and assigned to 
duty by General Grant's order. (War Records, Vol. x, Part 1, 
pp. 279, 466, 533, 559.) 

ISLAND NUMBER lO. 

April 81I1, 1S62, Island No. 10, commanded by General W. W. 
Mackall, was surrendered to the Federal Army under General 
John Pope. F"ederals claimed capture of 276 officers and 6,700 
men with small arms and 158 cannon; while Confederates re- 
port 3,557 as entire force at Island No. 10, and on March 21st 
the force of New Madrid at 3,225, and total number of guns at 
both places 117. General Beauregard complimented General 
Mackall, and he was made chief of staff of Western Army. The 
Federal force that operated against Island No. 10 and the adja- 



83 

cent force at New Madrid is stated as 22,808 strong. (See War 
Records, Vol. viii, pp. 78, 88-90, 93, 94, 13^, 136, 144, 182, 183, 
186 and 795.) 

FORT PULASKI. 

April iith, 1862, Fort Pulaski, a first-class fortification, was 
surrendered with 400 men, 47 cannon, 130 rounds of ammuni- 
tion to gun, 40,000 pounds of powder and commissary stores, 
the casualties being 4 men wounded. The loss of the Union 
Army was i killed. Col. C. H. Olmstead was the immediate 
commander, and Gen. A. R. Lawton the commander of the Dis- 
trict. They were not censured, but Gen. Lawton was honored 
by being given important commands, and was made Quarter- 
master General of the Confederate Armies. (War Records, Vol. 
vi, pp. 134, 146, 159. 167 and 263.) 

FORT JACKSON AND FORT ST. PHILIP. 

April 28th, 1862, Fort Jackson, below New Orleans, was sur- 
rendered with 600 prisoners, 509 stands of small arms, 73 cannon 
and military stores, having lost 9 killed and 35 wounded. Fort 
St. Philip surrendered the same day with a loss of 2 killed and 
4 wounded with its garrison, small arms and military stores. 
Gen. Johnson K. Duncan and Col. Edward Higgins, who com- 
manded, were not censured, but after their exchange were 
promptly given important commands. (War Records, Vol. vi, 
pp. 509-510-) 

RICHMOND, KY. 

August 30th, 1862, General William Nelson and General 
Mahlon D. Manson, with 10,000 men, were defeated by 5,000 
Confederates under General E. Kirby Smith, who captured 
4,826 prisoners, nearly 10,000 small arms, and 20 cannon, and 
military stores. Federal loss, 206 killed and 844 wounded; 
Confederate loss, 78 killed and 372 wounded. (War Records, 
Vol. xvi, part i, pp. 909, 935, 936.) 

harper's ferry. 
September 15th, 1862, Colonel Dixon S. Miles and General 
Julius White surrendered Harper's Ferry, with a loss of 44 
killed, 173 wounded, and 12,520 prisoners and small arms, and 
47 cannon. In the confusion which followed the surrender 
Colonel Miles was killed by an accidental shot, but General 



.^^ 



84 

Julius White was exchanged, given another command and after- 
wards was brevetted a Major-General. (War Records, Vol. xix, 
part I, pp. 548, 549.) 

' MUNFORDSVILLE. 

September 16th, 1862, Colonel J. T. Wilder surrendered 
Fortifications at Munfordsville, with 4,137 officers and men, 
4.000 small arms and 10 cannon. Wilder's report (War Records, 
\'ol. xvi. Part i, p. 961) states that he lost 37 killed and wounded 
on 13th and 14th; and General Bragg reports (p. 968) that gar- 
rison surrendered at night on the i6th, without firing a gun. 
Colonel Wilder was exchanged, given a select command and 
promoted. 

HARTSVILLE. 

December 7th, 1S62, near Hartsville, Tenn., Federal force 
1,834 strong, with small arms, battery and military stores, sur- 
rendered to General John H. Morgan. Federals lost 58 killed 
and 204 wounded. (War Records, Vol. xx, part i, pp. 45, 65.) 

GALVESTON. 

January ist, 1863, Galveston was surrendered to the Confed- 
erates with 500 prisoners, small arms and cannon, also the 
steamer "Harriet Lane" and military stores. Federal loss 2 
killed and 20 wounded. Confederate loss 25 killed and 50 
wounded (War Records, Vol. xv, p. 200.) 

ARKANSAS POST. 

January nth, 1S63, General Thomas J. Churchill and Col. 
James Deshler surrendered fortifications at Arkansas Post, and 
4,791 prisoners, with arms and ammunition and military stores, 
and 6 cannon. Confederate lost at Arkansas Post 60 killed and 
75 wounded. Federal loss 134 killed and 898 wounded. When 
exchanged, Churchill was promoted to be Major-General and 
Deshler to be Brig.-General, and both were promptly restored 
to prominent commands. (War Records, Vol. xvii, part 1, pp. 
719, 758 and 782, and Vol. liii, p. 866.) 

strfioht's raid. 

May 3d, 1863. near Rome, Georgia, Col. A. D. Streight sur- 
rendered 1. 1 55 officers and men t<> General Forrest. 



S5 

baker's creek, and big rlack. 
May i6th, 1863, at Baker's Creek or Champion Hill, 1,888' 
officers and men of Stevenson's Division surrendered. 
In War Records, Vol. xxiv. Part i, p. 320, we note : 
May 17th, 1863, at Big Black, 1,012 officers and men of Gen. 
John S. Bowen's Division were surrendered. Gen. Bowen reports 
the killed in his Division in this fight at 3, and his wounded at 
9. Gen. Pemberton, p. 293, thanks and commends Gen. Steven- 
son, and (p. 295) praises and eulogizes Gen. Bowen. 

WINCHESTER. 

June 15th, 1S63, 4,012 officers and men of Major-General 
Milroy's command surrendered to the Confederate General 
Ewell, with small arms, 23 cannon and 300 loaded wagons. 
Confederate loss, 47 killed and 219 wounded; Federals lost 95 
killed and 348 wounded. General Milroy escaped with 250 
cavalry. He was promptly restored 10 a prominent command. 
(War Records, Vol. xxvii, part 2, pp. 43, 53 and 442.) 

VICKSDURG. 

In War Records, Vol. xxiv, part i, we find the following: 

Page 424: — July 4th, 1863, Lieut. -General J. C. Pemberton 
surrendered the fortified City of Vicksburg to General U. S. 
Grant, with 29,491 prisoners, of whom 3,799 were sick, 172 
cannon and 50,000 stands of arms. 

Page 6: — Grant's loss, 545 killed, 3,688 wounded. 

Page 320: — Pemberton lost 312 killed, 794 wounded. 

Page 62: — Grant reports the capture of over 30,000 prisoners 
and over 170 pieces of artillery, and considerable ammunition 
and 50,000 small arms of good quality. 

Page 285 (Pemberton's report): 

"The assertion that the surrender of Vicksburg was compelled by the 
want of subsistence or that the garrison was starved out is entirely destitute 
of truth. There was at no time any absolute suffering for want of food 
among the garrison." 

Page 286: 

"The question of subsistence, therefore, had nothing to do with the 
surrender of Vicksburg." 

Page 292: 

" Much unnecessary clamor has been raised about the amount of ammu- 
nition at Vicksburg. 1 have already shown that my supply of ammunition 






" 86 

.was large, and that the principal, indeed the only deficiency was in musket 
caps." 

PORT HUDSON. 

Julv 9th, 1863, Gen. Franklin Gardner surrendered fortifica- 
tions at Port Hudson to Gen. Banks, who reports (War Records, 
Vol. xxvi. Part i, pp. 25 and 55) the capture of 

" over 5.500 prisoners, including i Major-General and i Brigadier-General, 20 
pieces of heavy artillery, 5 complete batteries, numbering 31 pieces of field 
artillery, a good supply of projectiles for light and heavy guns, 44,000 pounds 
of cannon powder, 5,000 stands of small arms, 150,000 rounds of small arms 
ammunition, besides a small amount of stores of various kinds, also two 
steamers." 

There is no published report from General Gardner. He was 
promptly given another command. 

CUMBERLAND GAP. 

September 9th, 1863, Gen. John W. Frazier, without firing a 
gun, surrendered fortifications at Cumberland Gap. Federals 
claim capture of 3,000 prisoners, small arms, military stores, 30 
days' rations and 12 cannon. Vol. xxx, part 2, p. 609, Gen. 
Frazier states that many escaped, and that only about 1,700 were 
surrendered. (War Records, Vol. xxx, part 3, p. 522 ) 

SEQUATCHIE VALLEY. 

October 2nd, 1863, in Sequatchie Valley, directly in the rear 
of Rosecran's army, 3,000 prisoners, 1,100 six mule loaded 
wagons, including a large ordnance train, 6, coo mules and horses, 
and ordnance stores were surrendered to the Confederates. (War 
Records, Vol. xxx, part 2, p. 723.) 

McMINVILLE. 

October 3rd, 1S63, Col. Michael L. Patterson surrendered to 
the Confederates the fortifications at McMinville, with 587 pris- 
oners and small arms, 200 horses and military stores for hall of 
Rosecran's army. Col. Patterson's casualties 7 killed and 30 
wounded. . (War Records, Vol. xxx, part 2, pp. 709, 723 ) 

stone's RIVER. 

October 4th, 1S63, Lieut. Frank D. Baldwin. i9ih Michigan 
Regiment, surrendered to the Confederates the fort and garrison 
and Bridge Guards at Stone's River, after losing 6 wounded. 
(War Records, Vol. xxx. Part 2, pp. 706, 724.) 



S7 
FORT DE RUSSY. 

March 14th, 1S64, Fort deRussy surrendered to Federals with 
317 officers and men. small arms and 10 cannon, with 100 rounds 
per gun. Confederate loss 5 killed and 4 wounded. Federal 
loss 4 killed and 30 wounded. (War Records, Vol. xxxiv, part 
I, PP- 314, 561, 578.) 

SABINE CROSS ROADS. 

April Sth, 1864, at Sabine Cross Roads, 2,500 officers and men 
of Gen. Banks' armv surrendered to Gen. Taylor, together with 
21 pieces of artillery, many stands of colors, and 250 wagons. 
Banks lost about 200 killed and 900 wounded. (War Records, 
Vol. xxxiv, part i, p. 596.) 

PLYMOUTH, N. C. 

April 20, 1864, the fortifications at Plymouth, N. C, surren- 
dered to the Confederates under Gen. Hoke, with 1,600 prisoners, 
small arms, and 25 cannon. The Federals also lost 3 gunboats 
and I steamer. (War Records, Vol. li, part 2, p. 870.) 

PIEDMONT, VA. 

June 5th, 1864, at Piedmont, Va., 1,000 Confederates with 
arms surrendered to the Federals. (War Records, Vol. xxxvii, 
part I, PP 95, 151.) 

brice's cross roads. 

June loth, 1S64, at Brice's Cross Roads, 1,618 Federals, with 
small arms, 16 pieces of artillery, 176 wagons and 184 mules and 
horses, surrendered to General Forrest. Confederate loss, 96 
killed and 396 wounded; Federals lost 217 killed and 394 
wounded. (War Records, Vol. xxxix, part i, pp. 95 and 227.) 

CAVALRY SURRENDER. 

War Records, Vol. xxxviii, part 3, pp. 632, 957, and part 5, 
pp. 260, 271 and 320, records the following: 

July 30th and 31st, 1864, Federal Cavalry force, 9,400 strong, 
was defeated and 3,200 surrendered to the Confederate Cavalry, 
together with horses, equipments, small arms and 12 cannon. 

Part 5. page 320: 

General Sherman reports that his 

"cavalry after a hard fight surrendered at Newman. Col. Brownlow reports 
all were killed or captured e.xcept such as cut their way out." 



83 

Hood's Official Report, Part 3. p. 632, says: 

"Our [Wheeler's] cavalry forced them [the Federals] to give battle near 
Newman on the 30th, and routed, captured or destroyed the whole force." 

Sherman's Memoirs, Vol. ii, page 87, states that the raiding 
column was 10,000 strong. Neither Stoneman, Garrard nor Mc- 
Cook was censured. They were honored and afterward given 
promotion by brevet 

FORT POWELL. 

War Records, Vol. xxxix, part i, pp. 417 and 428, records the 
following: 

August 5th, 1864, General Dabney H. Maury reported: 

"Lieut. -Col. James M. Williams of Fort Powell abandoned and blew up 
his works without having a man injured, nor any injury having been inflicted 
on any part of his Fort. He had under his bomb proof fully 30 days' water 
and 2 months' provisions. He had hand grenades, revolvers, muskets and 
howitzers, to defend his Fort against launches, and S heavy guns, to use 
against the ships." 

Page 417: — Federal General Gordon Granger reports, 

"Fort Powell was evacuated on the 5th inst., garrison escaping, but 
leaving 18 guns in e.Kcellent condition." 

FORT GAINES. 

War Records, Vol. xxxix, part i, pp. 417, 426, states that: 
August 8th, 1864, Fort Gaines surrendered. Gen. Granger 
reported: 

"We have captured 818 prisoners, 26 guns, a large amount of ordnance 
stores, and ammunition and subsistence stores for a garrison of 800 men for 
12 months." 

Gen. Dabney H. Maury, in reporting the surrender of Fort 
Gaines by Col. Charles D. Anderson, says, p. 426: 

"This powerful work was provisioned for six months, and with a garrison 
of 600 men." 

CALHOUN, GA. 

August 14th, 1S64, Federal guards, 300 strong, surrendered 
to Confederate Cavalry, together with 1,700 beef cattle, horses, 
mules and wagons. (War Records, \'ol. xxxviii, part 3, pp. 961 

990. 997) 

WELDON RAILROAD. 

War Records, \'ol. xlii, part i, p. 128, states that: 

August 19th, 1864, at Weldon Railroad, 2,650 officers and men 



of the Fifth Corps, mostly of the Division commanded by Gen. 
Samuel W. Crawford, surrendered to Gen. A. P. Hill, together 
wi'h small arms. 

Page 851: — Gen. R. E. Lee reports Hill attacked enemy on 
Weldon Railroad August 19th, and captured 2,700 prisoners. 

FORT MORGAN. 

War Records, Vol. xxxix, part i. pp. 404, 419, 422, 440, states: 
August 23rd, 1864, Gen. Richard L. Page surrendered Fort 
Morgan, Mobile Harbor. Federals claim 46 large cannon, and 
60 in all, 250 rounds of shot and shell to each large gun. and 50 
rounds to howitzers, 50,000 rounds of small ammunition, and 
600 prisoners; (p. 404): Federal loss i killed and 7 wounded. 
General Page, the Confederate commander, states (p. 440): 
*' My casualties were unusually small." 

Gen. Page was promptly restored and given another command. 

REAMS STATION. 

War Records. Vol. xlii, part i, p. 940, states: 

August 25th, 1864, at Reams Station, 2,150 prisoners, 3,100 
small arms, 9 cannon and 12 stands of colors of Gen. Hancock's 
Corps, surrendered to Confederate General A. P. Hill. Han- 
cock's loss (pp. 131-132) was: killed 117; wounded 439; prison- 
ers 2,046. 

SIX BLOCK HOUSES SURRENDER. 

August 28th to September 2nd, 1864, six block houses, with 
railroad iron covering, and their garrison, 480 strong, with small 
arms, surrendered to the Confederate Cavalry. (War Records, 
Vol. xxxviii, part 5, pp. 961, 990, 997, 1,031.) 

ATHENS AND SULPHUR TRESTLE. 

War Records, Vol. xx.xix, part i, pp. 533, 535, 544, states: 
September 24th, 18O4, Col. William Campbell surrendered 
Athens, Alabama, with 560 men and 2 guns to Gen. Forrest. 

Page 541: — September. 25th, 1864, Col. J. B. Minnis surren- 
dered Sulphur Branch Trestle with 394 men, small arms, and 
2 guns to Gen. Forrest. 

PREBLE'S FARM. 

War Records, Vol. xlii, part i, 143, states: 

September 30th, 1864, at Preble's Farm or Poplar Spring 



go 

Church 1,496 officers and men, besides a number of wounded, 
all of the Ninth Corps, commanded by Major-General Parkes, 
surrendered, together with their small arms, to General A. P. 
Hill. 

Page 548 reports 1.5 12 prisoners. 

SANTIAGO, CUBA. 

On July i6th, 1898, Lieut. -General Linares^nd Division Gen- 
eral Jose Toral surrendered their commands and fortifications 
in and about Santiago. Included in this surrender were 23.500 
Spanish soldiers, (13,000 of whom were in the city), 25,114 small 
arms, 5,279,000 rounds of ammunition, 141 cannon, with 7,000 
projectiles and military stores. American army, 18,218 strong. 
American loss in the three battles, Las Guasimas, San Juan 
and El Caney, was 241 killed, 1,445 wounded. 

MANLIA. 

August 13th, 1898, Spaniards surrendered fotifications at 
Manila, together with 13,300 officers and men, and small arms, 
60 breach-loading and 16S muzzle-loading cannon and mortars, 
and 382 old style bronze cannon. American force 8,500, assisted 
by Navy and Filippinos. American loss, 11 killed and 26 
wounded; Spanish killed and wounded, about 60. Spanish 
commander was not censured. 

History tells us that not one of these 58 officers whose sur- 
renders are recited, was tried or arrested, but on the contrary, 
many were highly honored; and the circumstances connected 
with these 58 surrenders show, that not a single one of them was 
as justified or unavoidable as the surrender of Detroit on August 
i6th, 1812. 

In addition, there was a very embarrassing feature in the case 
of Detroit, which did not exist in any one of the other surren- 
ders, with the exception of the surrender of Mackinac, July 17th, 
1812. 

WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT MERCY OF SAVAGES. 

In and near Detroit there were more than 3,000 women and 
children. Gen. Hull had fought and defended his position from 
noon of the 15th until nearly noon of the i6th of August; five of- 
ficers and men of his command had been killed and 18 wounded, 
and many women had been in constant danger of the enemy's 
projectiles. The Indians then with Gen. Brock and the numerous 



91 

savage tribes approaching, and then very near Detroit, had been 
incited against the American settlers of that vicinity by Tecumseh 
and his prophets. The English Northwest Fur Company and 
other English traders had been indefatigable in arousing and 
fomenting this animosity, using most insidious efforts to teach 
the Indians that the Americans had robbed them of their homes, 
hunting and fishing grounds on the Detroit River. This had so 
impressed them as to cause them to believe that the extermina- 
tion of these American settlers would especially please their god 
"The Great Spirit." (Tuttle's History of Michigan, p. 331 and 
seq ) It was absolutely impossible for the force under Gen. 
Hull to protect these numerous women and children from the 
butchery which would have taken place had the conflict been 
prolonged, and the only way to save them from savage rapacity 
was to secure a pledge from Major-General Brock that the force 
under his command and influence he possessed would be exer- 
cised to its fullest extent in guarding the persons and property 
of non-combatants, and women and children from the ravages 
of the excited Indians. That this was thoroughly accomplished 
by the surrender is admitted by Sheldon, the Michigan his- 
torian, whose enmity to Hull was extreme. He says, (p. 404): 

" It is true that the orders of General Brock were very strict; he did all 
he could to protect us and probably prevented a general massacre of the 
Americans." 

CRUEL AND UNJUST ACTS OF HIGH OFFICIALS. 

The illegal and arbitrary acts of high officials during this 
period, and their cruel use of official power to cast obloquy 
upon others in efforts to shield themselves from merited blame, 
their lavish bestowal of offices and honors upon those who 
aided them in such purposes, and the more than cruel punish- 
ment which they infiicted upon those whose conscience and 
honor caused them to refuse or even hesitate in obeying their 
illegal mandates, would astonish and shock the right thinking 
people of to-day. 

The fate of the members of the Court Martial, which was 
convened in 1814 to try General Wilkinson, and which is recited 
in Wilkinson's Life (\'ol. iii. p. 15), and commented upon in 
Vol. i (p. 5), is a typical example. 

It appeared that the Secretary of War issued an order 



directing that the distinguished Martin Van Buren should act 
as one of the prosecuting officers. This was unlawful and the 
Court so decided. 

Two months later the army was reorganized, and 12 of the 
13 members who had thus displeased the Executive, together 
with General Wilkinson, were stricken from its rolls, and 
wholly and entirely separated from the army. All of these 
victims were officers of very creditable service, and General 
Wilkinson and three others, who were so unjustly deprived 
of their commissions, were distinguished veterans of the 
Revolution. 

Man's circumstances and surroundings may change, but 
human nature is the same in all ages, and it is sad to know that 
right and honor is often sacrificed when adherence to it conflicts 
with a person's interest; and men who in all else are exceptional, 
too often lack the courage to put truth and justice above all other 
considerations. 

The events I have narrated very forcibly impress us that 
subservience to those who exercised power, bestowed honors and 
favors, and dispensed offices, was the same in 1812 as it was 1900 
years ago. 

The Holy Bible thus records the verdict of Pontius Pilate, 

before whom our Savior was tried: 

" I have examined him before you, and find no cause in this man touching 
those things wherein you accuse him. No, nor Herod neither." 

We also read how Pilate reversed his judgment and gave over 

unto death when he heard the threat: 

" If thou release this man thou art not Caesar's friend." 

Obloquy cast upon Gen. Hull would, it was hoped, turn the 

tide of censure from Gen. Dearborn and the administration, and 

the instruments to do this were carefully selected. 

GENERAL DE.^RBORn's 1LLEG.\L .■ACTIONS. 

Dearborn, the commander-in-chief of the armj', more than 
any one else, was responsible for the loss of Detroit, and in order 
that he might try his own cause, he was directed to leave his 
army in the heighth of war for a period of five months. Of the 
other officers selected to aid in this work, two-thirds were men 
with an average military service of but eight months, and with- 
out any active service in the field, and notwithstanding this lack 



93 

of experience they had received commissions in the regular army 
as Lieutenant-Colonels, Colonels, and even Generals, and most 
of the others who were not promoted at that time, received some 
substantial benefit or favor. 

To further assist in accomplishing this purpose misrepre- 
sentations of the most flagrant character were freely perpe- 
trated, and by this means much that is utterly devoid of truth 
has found its way into historical works; but notwithstanding 
this the truth has sometimes asserted itself. Lossing and Clarke 
were the first writers to penetrate the labyrinth of misrepre- 
sentations, and since preparing the above the eye of the writer 
has fallen upon the following: 

William Cullen Bryant's History of the United States 
(Vol. iv, p. 1S9) says: 

"He (General Hull) had served through the Revolution with distinction. 
Much of the obloquy which has been heaped upon him is probably due to 
Lewis Cass, who hastened to Washington with the first news, and gave it a 
coloring largely supplied by his imagination. Cass's letters, written before 
and after the surrender, flatly contradicted each other as to the state of 
affairs at Detroit." 

McMaster's History of the People of the United States 
(Vol. iii, p. 559) says: 

" He (General Hull) was a hardly used man. Not he, but Madison, 
Eustis and Dearborn were to blame." 

In collecting the foregoing, care has been taken to cite the 
authority for every material statement, and I assert with great 
confidence that the history of the events connected with the 
military operations upon the northern frontier during the 
spring and summer of 1812 shows, beyond question, that the 
disasters which occurred were caused by ill judged actions or 
orders of those high in power in Washington and on the 
Niagara frontier, the effect of which was to cause the inevitable 
sacrifice of the little force at Detroit. 

I do not cite these 58 surrenders to reflect upon the officers 
who were so unfortunate as to be in command. They have long 
since been fully exonerated by those whose duty it was to review 
and pass upon their action. 1 have simply recited facts as they 
are found in every history of the United States. And if the cir- 
cumstances attending the surrender of the garrison at Detroit 
are shown to have been more justified and more necessary than 



94 

any of the 58 cases cited, it is conclusive proof that so far from 
Gen. Hull being subjected to censure he should have been hon- 
ored, and I mention these 58 surrenders for the purpose of 
adding to the evidence presented, which proves beyond doubt 
that environed as he was by conditions for which he was in no 
wise responsible. Gen. Hull's action was not only proper, neces- 
sary and unavoidable, but that any other course would have 
been wickedlv criminal. 



'):> 




A 4'-'' ,' .<" ^ >/ t^# .. '■'''.•'' 









^z^- 



^e 



t 

I. 

iir 

!•■ 

1^ 
if 

!1 

IK* 

111! 

"! 

\n 
III 

iiiv 

lllj 

m 

!s 
is; 



